Presidential Race (Respector Edition)

[LouieB]

KevinG - Really!!??!?!? No one can explain that, because it is a fact of life. The deficit is a club to beat the crap out of those who don't like the other party. You are exactly correct. The GOP could give a rats ass about deficits. Giving some credit to the wacky libertarians here, I do believe they give a shit about this, but no one but them wants to say that what we need to do is stop spending money on crap like the military and the war on drugs and that would help a whole lot. Liberals (like me) like social programs because we believe we should be taking care of those who need the help. The conservatives are more than willing to spend money if it is for shit they like.

 

If this country really wanted to get back on its feet financially Congress would stop acting like children and do some hard work. Cut bullshit programs, cut the military, and tax people progressively and fairly. (I even have ideas of government programs that can be trimmed, but frankly they aren't going to cut the deficit all that much because they are really small.)

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

KevinG - Really!!??!?!? No one can explain that, because it is a fact of life. The deficit is a club to beat the crap out of those who don't like the other party. You are exactly correct. The GOP could give a rats ass about deficits. Giving some credit to the wacky libertarians here, I do believe they give a shit about this, but no one but them wants to say that what we need to do is stop spending money on crap like the military and the war on drugs and that would help a whole lot. Liberals (like me) like social programs because we believe we should be taking care of those who need the help. The conservatives are more than willing to spend money if it is for shit they like.

 

If this country really wanted to get back on its feet financially Congress would stop acting like children and do some hard work. Cut bullshit programs, cut the military, and tax people progressively and fairly. (I even have ideas of government programs that can be trimmed, but frankly they aren't going to cut the deficit all that much because they are really small.)

 

LouieB

 

Believe me Louie I know. I was hoping for those that lean to the right, try to explain it to me. Or at least acknowledge the hypocritical nature of the argument being made by the GOP.

[Tweedling]

I like crap like the military and war on drugs. If you lived closer to the border of Texas you'd be in support of more money for the war against the thugs that are brutalizing that part of our country.

I won't try to explain why both parties blame the other for their part in the deficit. Hypocrisy lands on both parties.

[KevinG]

I won't try to explain why both parties blame the other for their part in the deficit. Hypocrisy lands on both parties.

 

Yes both parties blame the the other for their part in the deficit. But last I checked the Dems aren't running ads saying we need to stop deficit spending. The GOP claims to be the party of financial discipline. They use this to fool the American people. To bad it, is nothing more than a myth. The hypocrisy on this issue lands squarely in the lap of the GOP.

[Atticus]

I noticed a Romney bumper sticker for the first time this weekend. which is strange, since I live in Texas.

 

granted: I don't actually see that many bumper stickers since Jules lent me my illegal alien chauffeur, but still...

[LouieB]

Believe me Louie I know. I was hoping for those that lean to the right, try to explain it to me. Or at least acknowledge the hypocritical nature of the argument being made by the GOP.

I am going to guess that not a single one of our snide (or not snide ) right wing advocates can even attempt to answer this question. The furor over Romney's secretly recorded comments at the fundraising meeting blows the roof off of the real issue here. Demoncrats are not less fiscally responsible than Republicans. That whole thing about tax and spend Democrats has lots of traction, but Republicans are just spend and don't tax supporters. So the poor and the old and disabled suck. But it sucks to be poor and old and disabled (or any combo thereof.) But as a society particularly one as rich as this one, has a responsibility to support those folks, even if it sucks to do so. Meanwhile everyone should be able to keep everything they earn, but too fucking bad. If you make a ton of money, you owe something back, unless you just really don't give a shit.

 

And we really have to stop giving subsidies and tax breaks to corporations that don't need them and starting wars that we aren't willing to tax people to pay for. And yes, you can shut down some stupid ass federal programs that really don't help anyone or have a high degree of fraud. I work on a few of them and you can take them when you are ready. But leaving the poor, elderly, or disabled high and dry, that's just plain wrong.

 

(Oh yea and for all you capitalists out there or those who just want to retire one day.....the stock market does better under Democrats too. Don't ask me why but it seems to be a fact.)

 

LouieB

[Guest Jules]

If you make a ton of money, you owe something back, unless you just really don't give a shit.

 

Those who make a ton of money might argue they "give back" plenty already. Who defines "something"?

[bleedorange]

For some people, the "rich" can never pay enough. And apparently, those people are defined by some as those who make more than the average household income of families in Third World countries.

[Tweedling]

I give the government a lot of fucking money and I guess I'm ok with it but i dont think it's fair.

I love how the elderly automatically get thrown into the Democratic column. It will be real interesting to see the stats on this after Obamas health care gets a chance to really settle in.

[LouieB]

Those who think that no matter how much they give it isn't enough and that anyone over a third world minumum is rich, well yea okay. fine. I feel your pain. I don't like paying taxes either. But again maybe instead of cutting back on benefits to the poor, the disabled and the elderly, maybe the pentagon really doesn't need as much and maybe we don't have to be the cops of the world. What do we really need to keep the US of A safe and secure?? Other countries don't spend as much on the military. Also other countries don't incarcerate as many of their people either, which costs us all a ton of money.

 

We might all be able to keep more of our hard earned paychecks if we got our priorities straight. But that is going to take some bi-partisan cooperation and apparently some real soul searching. I truly believe we can provide healthcare for all (other countries do on less), have a reasonable level of sercurity, and provide for the elderly and disabled without breaking the bank. We all may have to pay more to make this happen, but we also can't keep spending money on crap we don't need.

 

OH and by the way, older Americans vote more heavily Republican than younger ones. They are the block that has been pretty solidly in the GOP camp for some time.

 

LouieB

[Sparky speaks]

I am going to guess that not a single one of our snide (or not snide ) right wing advocates can even attempt to answer this question. The furor over Romney's secretly recorded comments at the fundraising meeting blows the roof off of the real issue here. Demoncrats are not less fiscally responsible than Republicans. That whole thing about tax and spend Democrats has lots of traction, but Republicans are just spend and don't tax supporters. So the poor and the old and disabled suck. But it sucks to be poor and old and disabled (or any combo thereof.) But as a society particularly one as rich as this one, has a responsibility to support those folks, even if it sucks to do so. Meanwhile everyone should be able to keep everything they earn, but too fucking bad. If you make a ton of money, you owe something back, unless you just really don't give a shit.

 

And we really have to stop giving subsidies and tax breaks to corporations that don't need them and starting wars that we aren't willing to tax people to pay for. And yes, you can shut down some stupid ass federal programs that really don't help anyone or have a high degree of fraud. I work on a few of them and you can take them when you are ready. But leaving the poor, elderly, or disabled high and dry, that's just plain wrong.

 

(Oh yea and for all you capitalists out there or those who just want to retire one day.....the stock market does better under Democrats too. Don't ask me why but it seems to be a fact.)

 

LouieB

 

Lou, the institution that allows both parties to keep spending to infinity is the Federal Reserve. They just keep on creating fiat money out of nothing for both parties to spend on war, bailouts, welfare, pet projects, etc., etc. It is the politicians private money printing press. We really don't have to pay taxes because they create so much money for the pols to spend, our tax money is but a drop in the bucket when you look at what our debt is.That's why it should be the main issue of this campaign and future ones. It is the reason our currency is being devalued and why we have suffered the collapse of the housing market and all that other good financial disaster stuff we are experiencing. But yet, everyone thinks we need more Fed involvement like they somehow are going to make things better. It is a result of their failed policies over the last century that have brought us to this point. But yet both parties refuse to reign this private cartel of bankers in. Until they do, nothing will change. Most of the issues people discuss here as problems that need to be solved, would be solved by going back to a stable currency backed by some commodity like gold and silver. It would put a brake on the endless spending of both parties and shut down the perpetual printing press the Federal Reserve runs. A "flexible" money system has destroyed our currency. The stock market rise and fall is also a by-product of Federal Reserve manipulation of interest rates. If you can borrow money at 0% interest, you are not going to invest it in new factories and business enterprises that would create jobs for people. You will invest it in the stock market and create a bubble raising demand for stocks that artificially raise their price. This bubble will surely pop when interest rates rise as they are sure to do when the rest of the world refuses to accept US dollars as the world's currency as a result of QE to infinity.

 

The market needs to adjust on it's own. The pain we are going to eventually suffer will be much worse because of Fed and government involvement in trying to forestall the inevitable. It is not government's responsibility to take care of everyone who can't make it. How much socialism will it take until all the wealth that creates jobs is redistributed? Where will the investment capital come from in the future if there is no incentive to take chances with one's money? Why would I want to start a business knowing that if I succeed my property will be confiscated by the government through taxation and redistributed to others who take no risks? That's what happened in the USSR, Cuba and every other failed socialist economy. We are not only socialist welfare state we are a corporatocracy to boot. Crony capitalism is just as destructive as the welfare state. We are actually a fascist/socialist mix. Something that probably hasn't existed ever in history to the extent is does here. Until our so called political leaders begin to discuss these issues we will continue to sink into the quicksand of a destructive collectivist economy.

[lost highway]

Lou, the institution that allows both parties to keep spending to infinity is the Federal Reserve.

 

There is still debt. The Federal Reserve doesn't print paper money and then put it in Senators hands and say "I know we just increased inflation for your initiative, but here, do it."

 

Most of the issues people discuss here as problems that need to be solved, would be solved by going back to a stable currency backed by some commodity like gold and silver. It would put a brake on the endless spending of both parties and shut down the perpetual printing press the Federal Reserve runs.

 

Yeah! Instead, let's base our currency off a finite commodity with wildly fluctuating values. While we're at it, let's give mercantilism another shot, too. A dollar WAS a promissory note back in 1932 when we last had a gold standard. For those who miss the gold standard you may want to check out the numbers for 1929-1932. They're not pretty.

 

As for socialism, I think we're pretty far off. In some ways we would benefit from being a more honest socialism. Overall what an effective American government looks like to me is really a technocracy. That can resemble socialism, capitalism, more often the latter or a hybrid. The downfalls of corporate control are not a product of our currency, but a lack of power, or willingness on the government's part to break up monopolies, stick to antitrust laws etc.

 

Your property is not confiscated, your income is taxed. Saying that it is merely distributed to others, and that they are uniformly not 'risk-takers' is a pretty severe misunderstanding. More of your federal tax money goes to the military and social security, more of your state money to schools and roads.

[IRememberDBoon]

Those who make a ton of money might argue they "give back" plenty already. Who defines "something"?

 

your mother

[Sparky speaks]

The problems we face come from over spending and over borrowing and the solution proposed by the Federal Reserve and our brilliant politicians is more over spending and over borrowing. That is nothing but a Ponzi Scheme and it will end like a Ponzi scheme ends. Probably much sooner than later. Good luck with that.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

[lost highway]

The problems we face come from over spending and over borrowing and the solution proposed by the Federal Reserve and our brilliant politicians is more over spending and over borrowing. That is nothing but a Ponzi Scheme and it will end like a Ponzi scheme ends. Probably much sooner than later. Good luck with that.

 

But again, this situation can not be attributed to a FIAT currency, or really even to the existence of a Federal Reserve. What you are pointing to has to do with the actions taken by the executive office, and by policy decisions made by the Federal Reserve. They have a history of decision making, and are capable of making different ones. Their purpose is to be a stabilizer. I agree that they are not always completely successful.

 

In the last twenty years the Fed has added and removed currency with a range of about plus or minus one percent, with the exception of a 3% spike in the year 2000. Inflation still has not reached the level it did in 1980 (the last time the world burned in a fiery torment and temporarily ended).

 

Your "Good luck with that" comment has all the flippant, cavalier smugness of every conspiracy theorist who focuses on one institution or variable at the expense of hundreds of others. It is a psychology that simplifies to get a monomaniacal satisfaction of having identified 'the true root' of all of our problems and seeing through it where the average person does not. It takes elements of truth and amplifies them to levels of self-deception.

[KevinG]

So which Mitt Romney comment would you guys like to talk about more?

 

Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance, people — we — if someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance and take them to the hospital and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.

http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/karen-finney/251381-romneys-er-care

 

When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no – and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she's safe and sound

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/mitt-romney/9564529/Mitt-Romney-why-dont-aeroplane-windows-open.html

[lost highway]

So which Mitt Romney comment would you guys like to talk about more?

 

Remember when he was slick, almost charismatic? Days on the road have not been good to him. The debates are going to be fun.

[KevinG]

Remember when he was slick, almost charismatic? Days on the road have not been good to him. The debates are going to be fun.

 

He has never been charismatic. He has been always been stiff and hard to relate to. He have always seemed to me to be a robot sent by an alien race to win the presidency.

 

I am particularly interested in his speech today at the Clinton Global Initiative. I wonder how the crowd will react to him and what he says. And generally when foreign policy and Mitt Romney come together hilarity ensues.

 

And if I may, to counter any arguments, I think it showed a lack of understanding by PBO not to meet with world leaders today. As a reference, last year PBO met with 13 world leaders. If this thread is any indication, it seems that no one cares about foreign policy in this race (other then maybe me and Tweedling).

[Guest Jules]

your mother

 

Zing!

[Atticus]

I've played music with Jules' mom. She's a bad ass.

[Sparky speaks]

This is funny...

 

[LouieB]

 

Your "Good luck with that" comment has all the flippant, cavalier smugness of every conspiracy theorist who focuses on one institution or variable at the expense of hundreds of others. It is a psychology that simplifies to get a monomaniacal satisfaction of having identified 'the true root' of all of our problems and seeing through it where the average person does not. It takes elements of truth and amplifies them to levels of self-deception.

I am glad someone here can intelligently argue about the Fed, because honestly I can't. The Fed is a fact of life and I will leave it to lost highway to debunk these conspiricy theories because I can't and won't. (Also it was not what I was talking about in my post, which is so far left unanwered.) We don't walk around with gold and silver coins in our pockets anymore so I know full well that money is an abstract on so many levels. Manipulating the money markets certainly could have disasterous effects I suppose, but that is hardly the sole problem with the Fed. I see no way to go back to a gold standard or whatever is being proposed by Sparky. I thought that battle was fought back a couple centuries ago.

 

So there are any number of disasters waiting to happen and plenty of room for conspiricies to be sprouted by someone. Somehow Clinton managed to balance the budgetand bring down the deficit without the entire government imploding. I think we can do that again, without penalizing the poor, disabled, and elderly and witout taxing the rich so much that they cry. We need the will and some honest cooperation, not the bullshit we have now.

 

LouieB

[Atticus]

This is funny...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpv0lPz-pd4

 

holy crap.

[Sparky speaks]

By John C. Williams, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of

San Francisco

For delivery on July 2, 2012

 

"Over the past four years, the Federal Reserve has more than tripled the monetary base, a key determinant of money supply."

 

Top 10 Reasons to End the Federal Reserve

 

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/top-10-reasons-to-end-the-federal-reserve

 

More good books to read if you want to understand the economic mess we are in...

 

http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Free-Market-Collapsed-Government-Bailouts/dp/1596985879

 

http://www.amazon.com/Real-Crash-Americas-Bankruptcy---How-Yourself/dp/1250004470/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348589529&sr=1-1&keywords=peter+schiff+the+real+crash

[Guest Jules]

This is funny...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpv0lPz-pd4

 

Yep. He does it on both sides, btw, and did vote for Obama (and probably will again).