Presidential Race (Respector Edition)

[lost highway]

I know its' hard to accept anything I post here. You have all gotten so used to attacking everything I bring to the table but your knee-jerk reaction indicates you didn't even read the article or at least grasp what it was saying. It is very relevant to a solution for today's problems.

 

You are cutting and pasting so fast that you are not prepared to defend what you are throwing on here. It stifles conversation instead of stimulating it (sorry hee). The 1920-21 Depression has been a pet example from the Austrian school of Laissez Faire economics enthusiasts because of the broad-based misconception number one that nothing was done, and the cyclical shift righted itself, and number two that it applies to any other depression since. It simply does not because it was purely monetary. In some ways it was intentional. The wicked deflation that caused it was an act of the Fed to make up for the Gold Standard getting out of whack. The only problem is they hadn't predicted the end of the war expanding the workforce, and the international trade of agricultural goods coupling with it to make a problem.

 

This does not correspond well to a housing crisis in a more global economy. You seem more prepared to cut and paste than to actually engage in a conversation. You keep missing that the Fed raised interest rates leading to the depression, then they lowered them.

[Tweedling]

Anyone seen 2016?

[Beltmann]

I haven't seen 2016, but I found it very interesting that, to a person, my "serious" conservative friends were embarrassed by it. They agreed that it's worse than a Michael Moore movie (which is saying something, since they really, really hate Moore's movies). That said, I know a few less serious conservatives (you know, the kind that think Sarah Palin is a genius, Sean Hannity is a journalist, and Obama is an America-hating communist) who thought it was must viewing. I think the different responses say more about our current political environment--which allows the unserious, with their cartoons and distractions, to dominate our discourse--than about the movie, which is obviously intended as propaganda.

[Sparky speaks]

March out of the Middle East. Lower taxes. Let the interest rate find its' natural level. Stop the financial bailouts and stimulus injections. Stop printing money for the banks to sit on. They are not too big to fail. Their good assets will be purchased by better performing institutions during the bankruptcy process. Stop creating financial bubbles with cheap money. Begin the cuts in defense. Roll back government subsidizing of college loans to reduce the costs of college. Provide social services for the very needy. Begin a means assessment for everyone else. Cut back on or eliminate foreign aid. Stop the Fed bailing out bankrupt foreign governments. Stop the Fed, period. I'm sure I left a few things out. Do we see any of this being seriously being considered by either candidate? Unfortunately, no. They both claim to have a better government plan to get us out the mess caused by government planning in the first place. It doesn't work. What they don't say is part of the election process as much as what they do say even though some might not think so. Anyone else got a plan?

[lost highway]

March out of the Middle East. Stop the financial bailouts. They [the banks] are not too big to fail. Their good assets will be purchased by better performing institutions during the bankruptcy process. Begin the cuts in defense. Cut back on foreign aid.

 

There is a list of things we both believe in. I think that Obama is pushing for some version of these, but to a lesser extent than you and I would like.

 

But here we are on page 68 of the thread about the Presidential Election, and you are still looking for a candidate to close down the Federal Reserve. For this above other reasons you do not see a difference in two candidates who are palpably different. I just mailed my ballot. I feel that the choices I made as a voter could have some significant effects on the future of my state, and my country.

[Sparky speaks]

Trying to steal your vote???

 

Romney family buys voting machines through Bain Capital investment

 

"Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of five board members in Hart Intercivic, a company that owns the notoriously faulty electronic voting machines that will count the ballots in swing state Ohio November 7. Hart machines will also be used elsewhere in the United States.

In other words, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and his brother, wife and son, have a straight-line financial interest in the voting machines that could decide this fall's election. These machines cannot be monitored by the public. But they will help decide who "owns" the White House."

 

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13221476-romney-family-buys-voting-machines-through-bain-capital-investment

[LouieB]

You are cutting and pasting so fast that you are not prepared to defend what you are throwing on here.

Thanks, you finally got Sparky to stop this for a minute or two.

 

 

There is a list of things we both believe in. I think that Obama is pushing for some version of these, but to a lesser extent than you and I would like.

 

But here we are on page 68 of the thread about the Presidential Election, and you are still looking for a candidate to close down the Federal Reserve. For this above other reasons you do not see a difference in two candidates who are palpably different. I just mailed my ballot. I feel that the choices I made as a voter could have some significant effects on the future of my state, and my country.

Thanks again. As I pointed out there are also things we can agree upon if the harping on the Fed ended. Clearly alot of what Sparky wants isn't going to happen under any President. Note that Sparky never talks about social issues hardly (choice, gay rights, etc.)

 

G

March out of the Middle East. Lower taxes. Let the interest rate find its' natural level. Stop the financial bailouts and stimulus injections. Stop printing money for the banks to sit on. They are not too big to fail. Their good assets will be purchased by better performing institutions during the bankruptcy process. Stop creating financial bubbles with cheap money. Begin the cuts in defense. Roll back government subsidizing of college loans to reduce the costs of college. Provide social services for the very needy. Begin a means assessment for everyone else. Cut back on or eliminate foreign aid. Stop the Fed bailing out bankrupt foreign governments. Stop the Fed, period. I'm sure I left a few things out. Do we see any of this being seriously being considered by either candidate? Unfortunately, no. They both claim to have a better government plan to get us out the mess caused by government planning in the first place. It doesn't work. What they don't say is part of the election process as much as what they do say even though some might not think so. Anyone else got a plan?

Okay march out of the middle east. Good idea, I think we are doing that, clearly too slowly, but it is happeneing. Romney wants us right back in . The US of A is not going to close down foreign bases wholesale (we still have bases places we don't need them from WWII).

All the rest of most of these programs are actually wanted by the vast majority of the electorate, both right and left. Not bailing out businesses would mean the end of much of economy as we know it, unfortunately, as would "printing money".. Ending most social programs except to the most needy (who determins that??) will be extremely unpopular and no one can get elected on that platform, because that also means ending all sorts of subsidies which even those on the right want. End of foreign aid? It is a tiny amount of the federal budget and I think you know that. The fact is that we live in and demand a planned economy because people don't want to see their life savings, buisnesses, and lifestyles disappear in the blink of an eye, which is what happened in early times. (Germany between the wars, serious resessions in the 1800s and before). That includes helping foreign economies. If other countries go out of business that hurts us too, because we are so interconnected, Maybe you should ask for an end to the World Bank too, that might help your position.

 

The one thing NO Americans want is to be buffeted by the economic forces that would transpire if markets were as free as you keep asking for or dumping all the social programs you apparently don't want, including student loans. They may be hellping put lots of young people in debt, but they would also elimate alot of less economically able kids from seaking any kind of further education.

 

I'm glad we cleared this up finally after all these pages. So don't vote for either Barack or Romney, that's your right. Now maybe you can stop cutting and pasting like a mofo all the time. At least you are using your own words for a change.

 

LouieB

[Sparky speaks]

 

Note that Sparky never talks about social issues hardly (choice, gay rights, etc.)

 

LouieB

 

Those are issues that are not the business of the federal government. Marriage laws are the left up to the states according to the Constitution as are murder laws. It is a waste of time to discuss them every presidential election cycle. As a libertarian and a constitutionalist I believe people should be free to do what they want in their personal life as long as you don't harm or threaten another person's life or destroy their property. You could interpret that to mean decriminalizing victimless crimes as well.

 

10th Amendment:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[KevinG]

Those are issues that are not the business of the federal government. Marriage laws are the left up to the states according to the Constitution as are murder laws. It is a waste of time to discuss them every presidential election cycle. As a libertarian and a constitutionalist I believe people should be free to do what they want in their personal life as long as you don't harm or threaten another person's life or destroy their property. You could interpret that to mean decriminalizing victimless crimes as well.

 

10th Amendment:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

DOMA is a federal law that was passed, that two Presidents had a direct affect on (Clinton who signed it; Obama who has stopped enforcing it). There is who is allowed to serve in our military. There is immigration policy.

 

One of the most important jobs, if not the most important job, of a president is to nominate and appoint federal and supreme court judges. These judges will end up ruling on many "social issues." So to completely discount the role that social issues play in presidential elections is shortsighted and foolish.

 

I always find Libertarians an interesting group. They general say let people and businesses do what they want and the markets will sort themselves out. The closest we have had to a Libertarian Society is the Gilded Age, where corporations pretty much ran the country and for a time it was pretty good for the businesses but those policies eventually lead to the great depression.

[Sparky speaks]

You can beleive what you wish. I find liberals an interesting group. They like to act as if there is no such thing as a Constitution that establishes a Federal System that places limits on the powers of the federal government and grants the rest to the states. So be it.

Your Great Depression story is just that, a story. Much more complicated than that. But I'm not going to argue with you about it. If that's what you believe, fine.

 

What exactly do you all believe? You sure have a fine time diagnosing my philosophy. Let's hear your solutions if you have any.

[Atticus]

coyotes

[KevinG]

You can beleive what you wish. I find liberals an interesting group. They like to act as if there is no such thing as a Constitution that establishes a Federal System that places limits on the powers of the federal government and grants the rest to the states. So be it.

Your Great Depression story is just that, a story. Much more complicated than that. But I'm not going to argue with you about it. If that's what you believe, fine.

 

What exactly do you all believe? You sure have a fine time diagnosing my philosophy. Let's hear your solutions if you have any.

 

It is all about State Rights v Federal Rights is it? So you don't want the federal government to tell us what to do but you are ok with the State government? Let's go back to the Articles of Confederation if that is what you want. Hell why don't we go back to the Feudal states of medieval Europe?

 

I am a pragmatist, I look at what we have to work with and try to make the best of a situation. Are we in an ideal situation with our government and our governmental dependance? Or course not. Should we burn the whole to the ground and start fresh, hell no.

 

Government should function as a protector of our nation and its citizen; to ensure infrastructure across the country; and to provide for the welfare to its citizens when needed. I believe in social justice, and the rights of every American to be the same.

 

The private sector cannot be trusted with the welfare of the people. History shows that every single time corporations will choose profits over people. And when corporations get too much power it is the people who ultimately suffer. Eliminating the tax code and the Federal Reserve will not help the average citizen, it will help corporations get richer. True free market capitalism does not work. It never has, it never will. If people weren't such complete dickheads we wouldn't government. But people are so we do. That is life.

 

Solutions, I don't have specifics, but other then the absurd ideas like abolishing the Fed and eliminating taxes, I see no specifics from you.

 

And yes I know the factors in that contributed to the great depression is more nuanced then the unfettered business dominance of the late 19th and early 20th century, but it was a major factor. However If there was a modicum of governmental control maybe most of the great depression could have been avoided.

[Oil Can Boyd]

Well this will all be settled on Wednesday when Donald Trump reveals his "very big" news about Obama:

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82701.html

[KevinG]

Well this will all be settled on Wednesday when Donald Trump reveals his "very big" news about Obama:

 

http://www.politico....1012/82701.html

 

The fact that he is willing to have Obama on Celebrity Apprentice if he loses the election?

 

I can't imagine what that blowhard has to say that will affect anyones vote. If it is so important why his he waiting until Wednesday?

[PopTodd]

[ih8music]

^ wrong thread or a delightfully random commentary on this one?

[bleedorange]

Further proof that the women's suffrage movement was the most ill-conceived cause of the last century.

[LouieB]

Nat Silver is a brilliant thinker and writer and one of the best things about reading the NY Times at the moment. Good stuff.

 

LouieB

[LouieB]

Solutions, I don't have specifics, but other then the absurd ideas like abolishing the Fed and eliminating taxes, I see no specifics from you.

 

Thanks for answering for me Kevin, because I am really trying not to talk to Sparky anymore. Even the terms he uses are deceiving. He wants free markets, but only wants to talk about the money supply, not actual markets, which are pretty darn free. I keep trying to figure out what else he wants to get rid of in the federal government, which he hates so much, besides the fed. Ron Paul and other liberartians have been pretty specific about getting rid of some of the departments, such as education, energy, etc. I just wonder if he wants to dump EPA, HHS, the EEOC, the FDIC, Agriculture, the NLRB, and some of the others along with the Fed. He still hasn't actually answered my question about whether he is okay with losing everything in a serious downturn brought on by lack of oversight or regulation by the federal government. It has happened in the past and that is why the Fed and Glass Steigle (already gone) and other financial regulation was created, not because some neferious federal government employee or the President though, let's keep people from doing what they want.. Many of the regulatory agencies that we have were in response to crises in the past, so dumping them could easily (as we have seen) create chaos if dismantled. He won't say how he feels about NAFTA and needing tarifs and enforcing trade equity etc. either. Simply talking about the money markets isn't really about free markets at all. The markets function as they always do (stock market, commondity exchange, global trade, your local businesses, etc.)

 

Clearly the federal government can't do everything, but I wonder about them doing NOTHING. How crazy would that be? He wants to know what I am in favor of? I am in favor of reasonable regulations to keep our economy and our society safe and equitable and out of the hands of the private sector running amuck. Other than that everyone can do whatever they want so far as I am concerned.

 

LouieB

[Sparky speaks]

Man, I'm flattered by all the attention my views get from you guys. You sure waste a lot of your time replying to my posts. My thoughts get more analysis here than anything Romney or Obama have to say. I would have stopped back on page two or three of this thread if I were you. It's pretty funny actually. I kind of enjoy reading what you all come up with next. What snide remarks can we make today about the guy who doesn't agree with the leaders and policies that have gotten us into this mess. At least I put some ideas on the table so you could bat them around. Someone else would have given up along time ago or been kicked off the forum for responding to your slings and arrows in a less deferential manner. Lou, I'm sorry I haven't gotten around to your NAFTA question. Been busy with all that unimportant Federal Reserve crazy batshit stuff. I know you are anxiously awaiting my opinion on the matter. But you always seem to know what I am going to say next so maybe I don't need to. Like I said in an earlier post, if you don't like what I have to say, don't respond, you only encourage the bastard. You've broken your pledge to stop responding to me more times than Clinton gets blowjobs.

 

Fortunately, in two more weeks you guys will get your new savior or old one for that matter and the bitching will begin anew about how he isn't living up to his promises or how he has let the left or the right down. The economy will continue to get worse, there will be more bailouts and new countries to bomb and invade. More folks will go on food stamps, prices will continue to go up, more jobs will be shipped overseas, medical and college costs will continue to rise, yada yada yada, and in four years we will get to argue all these same issues again hoping that if we just tweak the the same failed policies it will get better. Enjoy the illusion of having a choice when voting. But remember, it only encourages the bastards.

[LouieB]

Good to know you really dont care about what you are saying, just baiting us. Very helpful when you want to have a dialogue.. No one who gets elected is a savior, that's where you are totally wrong. The person who is elected in a couple weeks is only another human being grappling with huge issues and even larger institutions and problems. That's where we differ. Most of us don't expect Barack Obama or Mitt Romney to save us. Ron Paul can't save us either. This isn't a question of saving anything, it is a question of moving forward in whatever imperfect way we can.

 

Human history is littered with those who thought they could save people and mostly ended up destroying themselves and others. Name any tiyrant you want, they all thought they could save people, whether it was through politics, religion or some form of totalitarianism. You think we are stupid; actually once again you show your stupidity by thinking we are deluded. We aren't, but clearly you are. We don't want a savior, we want someone who will listen and act. Can anyone fix everythng? Nope. Does one thing fix everthing? Nope. Does one idea trump all others? Not at all.

 

Time to listen Sparky!!! Time to calm down and understand you aren't right. You just have an opinion, that's it.

 

LouieB

[Tweedling]

What can we expect tonight? Any bombs? (pardon the pun)

Will this be enough to turn these polls every channel and talk radio show is spinning about?

What should Obama point to as successes?

What will Romney say he'll do better?

I know the usual jabber from these two and basically what to eect just thought I'd see what you guys and gals were thinking.

 

[dagwave]

last debate, i watched msnbc and fox news in alternating 5 minute segments.

 

it was like they were commenting on two completely separate events...

 

although neither candidate left me feeling great about my country, these supposed "Masters of the Universe" should at the very least show a modicum of civility and decorum this evening.

 

(me, exhausting like Will Ferrell during the debate segment of "Old School")

[Turnips]

lol how can some of you actually be supporting this Romney clown?

[uncool2pillow]

We're dumb, you're smart. You should feel compassion for us rather than disdain.