Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

Irish8248

Well-known member
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
880
interesting so far

basically global hegemonic power is too big, too spread out, and leads to a fall

america is too spread out right now and thats why we find ourselves in places like the middle east

china is looking to become the biggest power. key to defeating that notion is for America to be a regional power -- though doesnt define region -- and then keeping other powers marginalized and not a power of their no region

kinda a blend of isolationism with current policy

i have several questions regarding it but i do buy into being too big as a global power is a problem for us.... That being said i dont think being a global hegemonic power is bad, we just dont need to rush into the aid of every country... at least not with ground troops. we have the most advanced military weapons, we should be fighting any conflict from the seas... that will allow us to be a hegemonic power because it will still assert our presence but it also saves our troops -- thats a whole different issue though
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
QUOTE=RallySonsOfND;921814]You do know that the 20s (known as the Roaring Twenties) was one of the best decades of US growth ever right? The reason we went into the Great Depression is because the Fed didn't do its job as being the 'Lender of last resort' which led to a 25% decrease in the Money Supply. And guess what else, the LOWER taxes of the 20s brought in MORE revenue for the government than the skyhigh taxes of the 10s.

FDR ****ed up the 30s. He is responsible for extending the Great Depression.[/QUOTE]

There was a lot of small business growth in the 20s because Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson broke up a lot monopolies and big banks. Something I am ashamed to say Obama nor any recent president has had to guts to do.

The government was not the lender of last resort until FDR got FDIC passed.

The economy kept getting worse under Hoover. The New Deal did not end the depression but there was job growth throughout FDRs presidency.

I know the economy just happen to bottom out when FDR took over just like the recession just happened to bottom out after the stimulus. All coincidence?
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
I would like to point out Bob D was a republican and for all I know may vote republican again some day.

The question is, will this man ever vote republican again?

121218_chris_christie_ap_605.jpg
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Not sure if this going load right using the phone. About taxes and growth.

taxratesgrowth.jpg
 
Last edited:

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
There was a lot of small business growth in the 20s because Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson broke up a lot monopolies and big banks. Something I am ashamed to say Obama nor any recent president has had to guts to do.

The government was not the lender of last resort until FDR got FDIC passed.

The economy kept getting worse under Hoover. The New Deal did not end the depression but there was job growth throughout FDRs presidency.

I know the economy just happen to bottom out when FDR took over just like the recession just happened to bottom out after the stimulus. All coincidence?

The Federal Reserve was originally the 'Lender of Last Resort' I am currently in a class that is solely on the Banking and Monetary system of this country, which includes a history of the Fed. I'm right.

The FDIC is NOW the 'Lender of Last Resort' which basically means that we have 2.

What do you think would happen to the country if the money supply were to shrink by 25%? Catastrophic. (aka the 30s) This put hundred of banks out of business and destroyed the economy. Then FDR comes in a makes everything worse for the next 7 years.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
The question is, will this man ever vote republican again?

121218_chris_christie_ap_605.jpg

Christie is a republican in every way and almost on every policy. Heck the guy just vetoed a minimum wage increase in NJ

The national republican base and the people that run CPAC don't like him for two reasons.

1- He has actually compromised with democrats who control both branches of the NJ legislature.

2- The biggest reason though is this one. He dared to say something good about President Obama. That will get you thrown out of the party lol!

In addition to Christie I have heard that President Obama will not be invited to CPAC either if he keeps up this idea that multimillionaires and corporations need to pay taxes.
 
Last edited:

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
"@TheNewDeal: "I'm Going to Use This Extra Money I Got from a Tax Cut & Use it To Hire People I Don't Need"... Said No Job Creator EVER. #Jobs #p2 #tcot"

"@TheNewDeal: Consumer Demand Creates Jobs. This Demand Forces Businesses to Hire to Keep Up. When the Public Has Money, They Spend It. #ECON101 #p2 #tcot"

"@TheNewDeal: Jobs = More Consumers, Taxpayers. More Consumers = More Demand. More Demand = More Jobs. More Taxpayers = More Revenue. #ECON101 #p2 #tcot"

From a contact I have on twitter. Demand creates hiring not money in Camen Island bank accounts.
 
Last edited:

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
All I learned today is that Dennis Rodman is crazier than any conservative or Tea Party member of Congress. Hands down, not even close.
 

Irish8248

Well-known member
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
880
From a contact I have on twitter. Demand creates hiring.

see thats precisely the problem -- you and the left, believe theres one factor or element to any problem.... How do you force or create demand? Theres more to it then just waving a magic wand and saying oh everyone wants this...

if there is no value (value in use or value in price) in your product then you have no demand.... literally in MBA class 101 they teach you demand = value/quality ... everyone could desire to have a porsche but if there isnt a price value to it then theres no demand for it. I will gladly settle for my ford or whatever.

if a company can make a product cheaper they will instantly attract more customers. Bounty towels will look more attractive now over insert store brand here. Price of the product controls everything, thats the problem with China products. In a terrible economy, youre willing to sacrifice quality for value
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
see thats precisely the problem -- you and the left, believe theres one factor or element to any problem.... How do you force or create demand? Theres more to it then just waving a magic wand and saying oh everyone wants this...

if there is no value (value in use or value in price) in your product then you have no demand.... literally in MBA class 101 they teach you demand = value/quality ... everyone could desire to have a porsche but if there isnt a price value to it then theres no demand for it. I will gladly settle for my ford or whatever.

if a company can make a product cheaper they will instantly attract more customers. Bounty towels will look more attractive now over insert store brand here. Price of the product controls everything, thats the problem with China products. In a terrible economy, youre willing to sacrifice quality for value

What do taxes on high level income have to with production.

When companies sell stuff they find a happy medium in terms of pricing. Too low=not enough profit margin, too high=not enough sales. Now the government comes and taxes the profit at the end. Would a company still use happy medium in pricing something to make a maximum profit at the end? Only difference is that with high taxes the government takes more off the top.

As far people putting cheap ahead of value, wouldn't we want people to have good jobs with good wages so they could afford to buy high valued things?

If tax the top and invest we can get full employment.

It is not like there isn't work that needs to be done. There are plenty of things like 2.5 trillion dollars in road repair needed just get back up to par. Again work that needs to be done at some point and is going to cost more the longer we wait.

Then is other projects that if we don't do we risk falling behind other nations in the global economy.
 

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
So do Pearls have value because people dive for them and they take a lot of energy to recover, or do people dive for them and put a lot of energy into getting them because they have value?


Saying it is only one or the other is like asking which blade on a pair of scissors does the cutting...
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
What do taxes on high level income have to with production.

When companies sell stuff they find a happy medium in terms of pricing. Too low=not enough profit margin, too high=not enough sales. Now the government comes and taxes the profit at the end. Would a company still use happy medium in pricing something to make a maximum profit at the end? Only difference is that with high taxes the government takes more off the top.

You clearly do not understand how businesses work. Things are a hundred times more complicated than that.

As far people putting cheap ahead of value, wouldn't we want people to have good jobs with good wages so they could afford to buy high valued things?

Why don't we pay everyone $100,000 then? You're simplifying the hell out of everything to fit a viewpoint Democrats blogs tell you can happen if we only do what they "suggest."

It is not like there isn't work that needs to be done. There are plenty of things like 2.5 trillion dollars in road repair needed just get back up to par. Again work that needs to be done at some point and is going to cost more the longer we wait.

We do not have 2.5 trillion in road construction that needs to be done.
 

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
You clearly do not understand how businesses work. Things are a hundred times more complicated than that.



Why don't we pay everyone $100,000 then? You're simplifying the hell out of everything to fit a viewpoint Democrats blogs tell you can happen if we only do what they "suggest."



We do not have 2.5 trillion in road construction that needs to be done.


Good posts Buster.


Why don't we just quadruple the money supply so we can pay everybody more and they can buy so much more stuff! There is no way that could have harmful effects...
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Not sure if someone has shared this yet? I think it shows who the republicans are trying to protect from a more fair taxation.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QPKKQnijnsM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:

Irish8248

Well-known member
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
880
Not sure if someone has shared this yet? I think it shows who the republicans are trying to protect from a more fair taxation.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QPKKQnijnsM?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

there was only one party last election who offered to close tax loopholes
 

Redbar

Well-known member
Messages
3,531
Reaction score
806
Some people would say you are inciting class warfare, Bob, never considering that there has BEEN a class warfare and they have lost. Awesome illustrations, thanks.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
He's not so much inciting class warfare as he is unfairly attributing the unjust defense of the uber-rich solely to the GOP, which is just beyond silly.
 

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Some people would say you are inciting class warfare, Bob, never considering that there has BEEN a class warfare and they have lost. Awesome illustrations, thanks.

I didn't make it, I just shared it. :)

He's not so much inciting class warfare as he is unfairly attributing the unjust defense of the uber-rich solely to the GOP, which is just beyond silly.

Have you been watching the news recently sir?
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
We might be worried about the wrong kind of debt. The fact is that stimulus rather through tax rebates or through jobs programs does not necessarily produce the desired consumer spending to increase demand like I talk about. A big if not the biggest reason Americans are strapped down with private debt. As a result instead spending in the economy often times Americans are paying down their debt.

I am not saying that we should do what the guy that wrote this suggest and just give everyone's debt scott free. I have debt from student loans which I have been making payments and fully inted to pay once I finish school a year and a half from now (I hope). I do think though people should pay attention to this problem though.

Thom Hartmann: Private Debt – Not Government Debt – Will Destroy America - Democratic Underground

Private Debt – Not Government Debt – Will Destroy America
Thursday, 14 February 2013 15:15 By Thom Hartmann, The Daily Take | Op-Ed

There are two kinds of debt. One that’s relatively harmless. And one that can destroy us all.

There’s public sector debt – or government debt – which is over $16 trillion. This is the sort of debt that politicians scream and holler about when they demand austerity.

And then there’s private sector debt – the debt owned by you and me and millions of Americans across the nation in the form of credit cards, home and auto loans, along with America's corporate debt. This sort of debt doesn’t seem to bother politicians at all, even though total private sector debt is $38 trillion, more than double government debt.

Now here’s what you need to know. Public sector debt is not a problem at all. Our national debt, despite the big number, is not a threat to the nation.

Currently, our national debt is roughly 100% of GDP. After World War 2, it was much higher – over 120% of GDP. But, rather than freaking out in the 1950’s and demanding austerity spending cuts, both Republican and Democratic Presidents and lawmakers grew our nation out of this so-called debt problem with government spending.

There were massive government investments to build the Interstate Highway System, send returning GIs to college, and to grow the social safety net.

And it worked. With more government investments, more Americans were put to work, which meant they had more money to spend, which meant more businesses hired more people to keep up with the higher demand, which meant Americans all around were earning more money and paying more revenue into the government through taxes. Our debt-to-GDP ratio plummeted from its peak of over 120% in the 1950’s to around 20% in the 1970’s.

Then Reagan came in, gave billionaires a massive tax cut, increased defense spending, and our national debt exploded again. But, two Presidents later, Bill Clinton had the budget balanced and the nation on track to completely eliminate the national debt within ten years.

George W. Bush blew up that plan with his tax cuts, wars, corporate giveaways, and his economic crash, so now we have a pretty massive debt, although not as big as the one Truman and Eisenhower faced and beat.

Our nation has a long history, from the Revolutionary War to the Civil War to World War II of dealing with our national debt, and reducing debt levels that are much higher than we see today. That’s why government debt is not a problem right now. With just a small amount of political will, it can be solved pretty easily: more government investments to put people to work and more taxes on the rich so that they pay their fair share again have always solved it in the past.

On the other hand, private sector debt is a huge problem. Not only is it devastating the livelihoods of millions of Americans around the nation, but it’s also pushing our economy toward collapse.

After World War 2, total private debt was below 50% of GDP. Today, it’s more than 250% of GDP, which is even higher than it was during the Great Depression.

There are several reasons for this.

The first is that when Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, businesses started merging and acquiring each other like crazy. Because of changes in the rules on how that could be done, Private Equity or LBO firms came into existence, driving the monopolistic merger process with trillions in debt. Today virtually every corporate merger involves the company taking on huge debt, while the executives and the Pirate Equity boys take home billions. The result is that most of this private sector debt is corporate debt, and it's dangerously high, a teetering, towering house of cards.

And then there's household debt.

Since Reagan, Americans have not been paid more for their increased productivity, so wages have failed to keep up with the rising costs of housing, energy, education, and healthcare. To make ends meet, Americans had to extend their credit lines and home mortgages, thus sinking further into debt.

Also, there was the housing bubble, which was caused by banksters pushing mortgages – or debt – on millions of Americans, knowing that those same Americans were unlikely to be able to pay down those mortgages and debt.

But the banks made a ton of money selling off that bad debt to other investors before the market went bust, and skimming fees off the top of every single transaction.

And, of course, all of the losses that the banksters did incur during the crisis were promptly repaid by our government thanks to the bailout.

But nobody seemed to care about the debt that everyone else who wasn’t a bankster still had. Nobody except the banks, which are still trying to suck more and more money out of their indebted customers, and are now bringing back debtor’s prisons to help in this effort.

In Arkansas, a breast cancer survivor, Lisa Lindsay, was thrown in jail because she didn’t pay a $280 medical bill, which was charged to her by mistake.

Debtors’ prisons haven’t officially been used in America since before the Civil War. But today, a third of the states in the country allow debt collectors to use the public court system to go after people who owe them money. So, rather than being thrown in jail for specifically owing money, Americans are thrown in jail for not showing up to court hearings or not paying legal fines stemming from their debts.

There’s even a law in Arkansas that allows landlords to throw tenants in jail if they're late on their rent. According to a recent report by Human Rights Watch, hundreds of tenants in Arkansas who’ve fallen on hard times and can’t pay their rent are taken to court and sometimes jailed.

So, in a roundabout way, the debtors prisons have returned to America.

This is a huge problem because economies depend on consumers – people like you and me – spending money. But, if we’re in debt up to our eye-balls, and being thrown in prison for that debt, then we can’t spend money to stimulate the economy.

As economist Steve Keen told me, “That’s why we’re in a crisis.”

He added that it wasn't the government deficit we have to worry about. Instead, he said, “It’s the dynamics of private debt that have determined the crunch we’re in now.”

While debt can be useful and free up more spending in the economy, we’ve reached a point where businesses and individual Americans can no longer afford to go deeper into debt.

And a major reason why the economy continues to stagnate after the collapse is because Americans are paying down their debt rather than spending money in the economy. And the more Americans continue to pay down their debt instead of spending, the worse the economy will get.

When this happens, Keen told me, “You plunge off the cliff.”

Even government stimulus can’t help at this point. Whether it was Bush’s stimulus at the end of 2008 that gave everyone a couple hundred bucks, or Obama’s stimulus in 2009, any extra money Americans get from the government is diverted away from the economy and put instead toward paying down their huge individual debts, which has no stimulative effect on the economy at all.

If private debt was 50% of GDP like in the 1950’s, then Americans could afford to both buy things and pay down their own debt. And ditto for businesses. But at 250% of GDP, that private sector debt strangles the economy and sets the stage for a looming economic collapse.

So then, what’s to be done?

We should wipe the worst and most destructive of the private sector debt, the debt that prevents people from spending.

Keen calls for a debt jubilee. That means using the government to simply pay off much of the individual debt across America, from mortgages to student loans to credit cards.

This is also the approach Occupy Wall Street is taking with its “Strike Debt” campaign, though the organization is also relying on private donations to help buy people’s overdue debt at a cheap price and then completely wipe it out.

A debt jubilee isn’t a radical idea. In fact, it’s promoted in the Bible in the Book of Leviticus, which calls for a debt jubilee every 49 years. As Leviticus 25:10 reads, "This fiftieth year is sacred—it is a time of freedom and of celebration when everyone will receive back their original property, and slaves will return home to their families."

Debt cancellation is supported in the Koran, too. And it was used in Ancient Athens and many Native American societies.

Wiping out private debt would unleash enormous spending in our economy in ways we haven’t seen since the boom years of the 1950’s and 1960’s. The only reason it’s not seriously being considered by our lawmakers today is because a debt jubilee would diminish the profits of the banksters who thrive – and prey – on an indebted nation.

But, in the not-to-distant future, as our economy continues to collapse under the weight of tens of trillions of dollars in private sector debt, our nation will be faced with an ultimate choice: Strike Debt or watch our economy completely collapse in a way that will make 1929 look like a picnic.

Let’s make the right choice now!

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
He's not so much inciting class warfare as he is unfairly attributing the unjust defense of the uber-rich solely to the GOP, which is just beyond silly.

How is it beyond silly? What liberal policies have actually got class warfare to where it is it?

It must be those union workers that are just sucking this whole economy dry. Heaven forbid at a time of record profits we actually pay workers good wages and give them health care.

Maybe NAFTA and GATT, although that had bipartisan support but Clinton did take short term gain to sacrifice the long term benefit of American workers.

There is the affordable housing law that helped cause the finacial crisis which was again bipartisan although Barney Frank (D) had alot to do with it. There was already income inequality long before the finacial crisis so I don't see how this would attribute to the class divide.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
there was only one party last election who offered to close tax loopholes

The Romney wanted to close loopholes and cut 5 trillion in taxes mostly on the top. The only way for that be deficit neutral is 1-Economy would have to really take off beyond the typical optimistic projection, 2-You have to close just about every single deduction and loophole in the tax cut even things like families paying for college, and other deductions used by the middle class.

Romney's tax plan would done one of two things either: 1- added to the deficit or 2-put even more of a burden on working families, who contrary to what the tax rates may look like actually pay a greater effective tax rate than rich people.

Now that is not going to be a rate decrease the GOP has backed off their loophole position.

We said by President Clinton
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/93X6cHH2WrM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

We are still raiting for republican to put fourth of a public plan. Even with the Ryan plan nobody knew exactly what the cuts were. We just knew there would be cuts.
 

Ndaccountant

Old Hoss
Messages
8,370
Reaction score
5,771
How is it beyond silly? What liberal policies have actually got class warfare to where it is it?

It must be those union workers that are just sucking this whole economy dry. Heaven forbid at a time of record profits we actually pay workers good wages and give them health care.

Maybe NAFTA and GATT, although that had bipartisan support but Clinton did take short term gain to sacrifice the long term benefit of American workers.

There is the affordable housing law that helped cause the finacial crisis which was again bipartisan although Barney Frank (D) had alot to do with it. There was already income inequality long before the finacial crisis so I don't see how this would attribute to the class divide.

I know it was in italcs, but I have to jump in here.

You know why I don't like unions? Here is why:
Unions at the core are unfair. In their quest to drive fairness in wages/benefits, they make everyone equal, whether the contracted pay is determined based on length on the job, work classification, etc. So what does that do? Let's say worker X and worker Y work assembly and assemble the exact same parts. They both get paid the exact same because they have been with the company for 5 years. Worker X assembles 10 parts a day while worker Y assembles 8. Is it fair that worker X is getting paid the same even though he is producing more? More so, what if worker X could assemble 20 a day? What incentive does he have to improve efficiency? In all likelihood, he probably has incentives to not work as hard, since he could get OT to make up for his lack of production. In the end, worker X has incentives to produce the same amount as his peers, regardless of whether or not he personally could do more. The easy solution would be to reward individuals for good performance, but good luck getting the union to sign off on rewarding one group of employees and not everyone.

This also extends to what people are saying with inequality. They want to bring down the top end to make things more equal. This solution just masks why we have the problem in the first place.

Now, I am not saying that certain tax changes make sense, I want carried interest to be income. But people are being fooled into thinking that inequality is caused by tax changes. Inequality is far more complex than that.
 

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,536
Reaction score
3,287
I know it was in italcs, but I have to jump in here.

You know why I don't like unions? Here is why:
Unions at the core are unfair. In their quest to drive fairness in wages/benefits, they make everyone equal, whether the contracted pay is determined based on length on the job, work classification, etc. So what does that do? Let's say worker X and worker Y work assembly and assemble the exact same parts. They both get paid the exact same because they have been with the company for 5 years. Worker X assembles 10 parts a day while worker Y assembles 8. Is it fair that worker X is getting paid the same even though he is producing more? More so, what if worker X could assemble 20 a day? What incentive does he have to improve efficiency? In all likelihood, he probably has incentives to not work as hard, since he could get OT to make up for his lack of production. In the end, worker X has incentives to produce the same amount as his peers, regardless of whether or not he personally could do more. The easy solution would be to reward individuals for good performance, but good luck getting the union to sign off on rewarding one group of employees and not everyone.

This also extends to what people are saying with inequality. They want to bring down the top end to make things more equal. This solution just masks why we have the problem in the first place.

Now, I am not saying that certain tax changes make sense, I want carried interest to be income. But people are being fooled into thinking that inequality is caused by tax changes. Inequality is far more complex than that.


This topic had a discussion on education a few pages back, and what I bolded is one of the major problems we are seeing in school today. The focus is on improving the scores of the underachieving students while proficient and beyond proficient students are stuck not improving. Sure we should want to help the students who need it, but not at the cost of making the "smart" kids lazy, disconnected, and uninterested. We shouldn't bring the top down to raise the bottom.
 
Top