werepossum:

As for corporate income taxes, corporations don't pay taxes; the taxes either come out of the dividends paid to share-holders, or are passed along as higher costs to the end user. The consumer pays everything, in the end, which is as it should be. If corporations can pass along the higher taxes to consumers, they will. Corporations that cannot pass along the higher taxes to consumers, either because of government regulation or because of competition from foreign corporations taxed at lower rates, will be increasingly unable to compete. Their stock prices will plummet because dividends will drop or become non-existent and expenses (which includes corporate taxes) will rise faster than earnings, their profit margins will go down, and eventually they must either move off-shore, go bankrupt, or be snapped up cheaply by foreign corporations. All of this has been going on for decades; look for the pace to step up briskly. Success for start-ups like The Escapist will increasingly be decided not by who has the best idea and implementation, but by who has the best contacts and lobbyists. Venture capital will be out, to be replaced by government grants.

Doesn't this assume all things being equal?

Imitation Saccharin :

werepossum:

As for corporate income taxes, corporations don't pay taxes; the taxes either come out of the dividends paid to share-holders, or are passed along as higher costs to the end user. The consumer pays everything, in the end, which is as it should be. If corporations can pass along the higher taxes to consumers, they will. Corporations that cannot pass along the higher taxes to consumers, either because of government regulation or because of competition from foreign corporations taxed at lower rates, will be increasingly unable to compete. Their stock prices will plummet because dividends will drop or become non-existent and expenses (which includes corporate taxes) will rise faster than earnings, their profit margins will go down, and eventually they must either move off-shore, go bankrupt, or be snapped up cheaply by foreign corporations. All of this has been going on for decades; look for the pace to step up briskly. Success for start-ups like The Escapist will increasingly be decided not by who has the best idea and implementation, but by who has the best contacts and lobbyists. Venture capital will be out, to be replaced by government grants.

Doesn't this assume all things being equal?

Short answer, yes.
Long answer, yes, but things have been trending in that direction for decades. Corporations give donations to politicians and political parties, and to NFPs like ACORN and the ACLU and the NRA that powerful politicians support, and employ relatives, friends, and lovers of politicians and powerful members of the political parties. In return, politicians write amendments in bills that give tax breaks, government grants, and regulatory relief to those corporations, allowing them to make huge sums of money if their gambles pay off and then bailing them out if their gambles fail. This is true even under Republicans, who at least pay lip service to the twin ideas of free markets and capitalism. It is even more true under Democrats, who are pretty up front about their philosophy that government is the answer. Obama is the Senate's most liberal senator by both liberal and conservative groups' reckoning. Therefore even without his specific proposals, it's reasonable to assume a quickening of the process with the Senate's most liberal senator at the top and Congress, led by very liberal Democrats such as Pelosi and Reid, firmly in the Democrats' hands. There is no filibuster in the House, and the Republicans will be lucky to retain even a theoretical filibuster power in the Senate.

This is a good thing if you believe the government should directly control the economy and re-distribute income to make things fair. This is a bad thing if you believe the government should not directly control the economy and that income is earned, not distributed. The USA has historically been a country with outstanding vertical mobility, where by hard work and good ideas one can rise to a higher class, and conversely with poor decisions and sloth one can plummet from the upper class. This is changing. Americans are now more interested in government providing more of our needs and wants, and protecting us from our own bad decisions.

This is why democracy is so great: we always get the leaders we deserve.

werepossum:
Whichever way Obama chooses to go, look for an economy where the government plays an ever-increasing role, both in choosing what industries are profitable and what individual companies within each industry succeed. Again, we have been moving toward a Soviet-style command economy for decades, but this will be a sharp increase in pace.

I find this outcome so dire that I wish I could argue with you, but I sadly agree with your analysis.

werepossum:

Corporations give donations to politicians and political parties, and to NFPs like ACORN and the ACLU and the NRA that powerful politicians support, and employ relatives, friends, and lovers of politicians and powerful members of the political parties.

Lobbyists are hated (at least rhetorically) by both parties, so I fail to see how this applies to Obama especially.

werepossum:

In return, politicians write amendments in bills that give tax breaks, government grants, and regulatory relief to those corporations, allowing them to make huge sums of money if their gambles pay off and then bailing them out if their gambles fail.

So if that much control exists, why the vanishing corporate benefits? The massive balloon of executive pay?
Surely the first thing the standard politico would do would be to fix those two?

werepossum:

Therefore even without his specific proposals, it's reasonable to assume a quickening of the process with the Senate's most liberal senator at the top and Congress, led by very liberal Democrats such as Pelosi and Reid, firmly in the Democrats' hands.

This is extremely vague.

werepossum:

This is a good thing if you believe the government should directly control the economy and re-distribute income to make things fair.

Again, if you are not engaging in hyperbole, why has this not already happened?

werepossum:

The USA has historically been a country with outstanding vertical mobility, where by hard work and good ideas one can rise to a higher class, and conversely with poor decisions and sloth one can plummet from the upper class.

If this holds true, EU nations should be locked dead. They are not.

Archon:

werepossum:
Whichever way Obama chooses to go, look for an economy where the government plays an ever-increasing role, both in choosing what industries are profitable and what individual companies within each industry succeed. Again, we have been moving toward a Soviet-style command economy for decades, but this will be a sharp increase in pace.

I find this outcome so dire that I wish I could argue with you, but I sadly agree with your analysis.

Again, I also agree. I do so hate the socialist/planned market ideal. To me it just seems to take away all need to work hard and do anything. If i can be supported totally by the state why bother training all those years to be a systems analyst when I could just as easily get an equally (if not equal then supported by the state) payed job doing one of my hobbies (rockclimbing) I would far rather climb or instruct for a living than be an analyst but there just isnt a job in it.

Yay for killing all forms of venture eh?

werepossum:
Whichever way Obama chooses to go, look for an economy where the government plays an ever-increasing role, both in choosing what industries are profitable and what individual companies within each industry succeed. Again, we have been moving toward a Soviet-style command economy for decades, but this will be a sharp increase in pace.

Then what do you say about all the crap the Republicans have been pulling with the bank buy outs? Who do you blame then? Or is it all still some "Socialist" Democrats fault?

mipegg:

Again, I also agree. I do so hate the socialist/planned market ideal. To me it just seems to take away all need to work hard and do anything. If i can be supported totally by the state why bother training all those years to be a systems analyst when I could just as easily get an equally (if not equal then supported by the state) payed job doing one of my hobbies (rockclimbing) I would far rather climb or instruct for a living than be an analyst but there just isn't a job in it.

Yay for killing all forms of venture eh?

Why is it then that many of the "Socialistic" countries in Europe have thriving economies?

Also, just to let you know, being a Rock Climbing Intructor is a fine job. People can make a fine living doing it. For example: http://www.rockclimbingjobs.com/northeasternstates.htm

axia777:

werepossum:
Whichever way Obama chooses to go, look for an economy where the government plays an ever-increasing role, both in choosing what industries are profitable and what individual companies within each industry succeed. Again, we have been moving toward a Soviet-style command economy for decades, but this will be a sharp increase in pace.

Then what do you say about all the crap the Republicans have been pulling with the bank buy outs? Who do you blame then? Or is it all still some "Socialist" Democrats fault?

mipegg:

Again, I also agree. I do so hate the socialist/planned market ideal. To me it just seems to take away all need to work hard and do anything. If i can be supported totally by the state why bother training all those years to be a systems analyst when I could just as easily get an equally (if not equal then supported by the state) payed job doing one of my hobbies (rockclimbing) I would far rather climb or instruct for a living than be an analyst but there just isn't a job in it.

Yay for killing all forms of venture eh?

Why is it then that many of the "Socialistic" countries in Europe have thriving economies?

Also, just to let you know, being a Rock Climbing Intructor is a fine job. People can make a fine living doing it. For example: http://www.rockclimbingjobs.com/northeasternstates.htm

You didn't answer his question.

What's the point of working hard, if there's no advancement?

Also. Europe is a Continent, thus, the countries act independantly when it comes to taxation/government financial tactics.
Also, those countries all have alot less people than the US. They also have alot less poverty.
If we tried to shift into Socialism now, it would fail entirely without any success.

Acervusvlos:

axia777:

werepossum:
Whichever way Obama chooses to go, look for an economy where the government plays an ever-increasing role, both in choosing what industries are profitable and what individual companies within each industry succeed. Again, we have been moving toward a Soviet-style command economy for decades, but this will be a sharp increase in pace.

Then what do you say about all the crap the Republicans have been pulling with the bank buy outs? Who do you blame then? Or is it all still some "Socialist" Democrats fault?

mipegg:

Again, I also agree. I do so hate the socialist/planned market ideal. To me it just seems to take away all need to work hard and do anything. If i can be supported totally by the state why bother training all those years to be a systems analyst when I could just as easily get an equally (if not equal then supported by the state) payed job doing one of my hobbies (rockclimbing) I would far rather climb or instruct for a living than be an analyst but there just isn't a job in it.

Yay for killing all forms of venture eh?

Why is it then that many of the "Socialistic" countries in Europe have thriving economies?

Also, just to let you know, being a Rock Climbing Instructor is a fine job. People can make a fine living doing it. For example: http://www.rockclimbingjobs.com/northeasternstates.htm

You didn't answer his question.

What's the point of working hard, if there's no advancement?

Also. Europe is a Continent, thus, the countries act independently when it comes to taxation/government financial tactics.
Also, those countries all have a lot less people than the US. They also have a lot less poverty.
If we tried to shift into Socialism now, it would fail entirely without any success.

But I countered his question. I say it is BS that in semi-socialized countries like Norway or France people do not work hard and advance far. It is utterly retarded to think so.

I also know that Europe acts as separate countries. I think I pointed that out when I named them as such.

Another thing of note, if we can spend all most three trillion dollars on this war in Iraq, I think it is justified that we can spend a few billion on things like Universal Health Care. I also never said I wanted America to completely shift to full Socialism. A careful melding of Capitalism and Socialism would do just fine. A free business market with a Federally run Health Care system sounds pretty good to me.

Also of note: Obama NEVER said he wants to socialize America. If he did, please give me an example. Because you can't. He is a Democrat, not a socialist.

axia777:

Acervusvlos:

axia777:

werepossum:
Whichever way Obama chooses to go, look for an economy where the government plays an ever-increasing role, both in choosing what industries are profitable and what individual companies within each industry succeed. Again, we have been moving toward a Soviet-style command economy for decades, but this will be a sharp increase in pace.

Then what do you say about all the crap the Republicans have been pulling with the bank buy outs? Who do you blame then? Or is it all still some "Socialist" Democrats fault?

mipegg:

Again, I also agree. I do so hate the socialist/planned market ideal. To me it just seems to take away all need to work hard and do anything. If i can be supported totally by the state why bother training all those years to be a systems analyst when I could just as easily get an equally (if not equal then supported by the state) payed job doing one of my hobbies (rockclimbing) I would far rather climb or instruct for a living than be an analyst but there just isn't a job in it.

Yay for killing all forms of venture eh?

Why is it then that many of the "Socialistic" countries in Europe have thriving economies?

Also, just to let you know, being a Rock Climbing Instructor is a fine job. People can make a fine living doing it. For example: http://www.rockclimbingjobs.com/northeasternstates.htm

You didn't answer his question.

What's the point of working hard, if there's no advancement?

Also. Europe is a Continent, thus, the countries act independently when it comes to taxation/government financial tactics.
Also, those countries all have a lot less people than the US. They also have a lot less poverty.
If we tried to shift into Socialism now, it would fail entirely without any success.

But I countered his question. I say it is BS that in semi-socialized countries like Norway or France people do not work hard and advance far. It is utterly retarded to think so.

I also know that Europe acts as separate countries. I think I pointed that out when I named them as such.

Another thing of note, if we can spend all most three trillion dollars on this war in Iraq, I think it is justified that we can spend a few billion on things like Universal Health Care. I also never said I wanted America to completely shift to full Socialism. A careful melding of Capitalism and Socialism would do just fine. A free business market with a Federally run Health Care system sounds pretty good to me.

Also of note: Obama NEVER said he wants to socialize America. If he did, please give me an example. Because you can't. He is a Democrat, not a socialist.

It's what he plans to DO that is socialist.
You can be a Fascist, and not know it (I'm a conservative, but let's be honest, Bush was pushing us toward Fascism, Reagan is rolling over in his grave whenever people associate Bush with the republican party.)
At the same time, you can be a Socialist without even saying it. He may not even CONSIDER it socialism. But still, doing something 'for the good of the majority of society' is SOCIALISM. That's what the democratic platform is, instead of supporting businesses that provide for people, they provide for people directly.

Both systems suck, to be honest, and, I know I'm going to spell it wrong, but, Lezzaiz Faire is the only way to go. We'll never reach it, though.

Also, regarding healthcare.

I don't MIND it. But, if I pay for my own insurance, and can afford healthcare, I should be able to jump to the front of the line. It's only fair. I paid, so I get the benefits.

BaronAsh:

Spartan Bannana:

snowplow:
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin

Care to have some content in this post besides the link?

Anyway, I like Obama's plan, the tax raise only affects rich people, and there's been analysis done, I can't remember the exact numbers but John Mccain's plan will raise our debt about 14 trillion dollars, and Obama's plan would raise our debt about 78 billion dollars.

I heard that from an anaylist on Nine News right after the 3rd debate.

I want some proof on that one.

Besides Obama says he's going to tax the rich folks even more, their tax rate is already 35% which is the second highest in the world. In my mind taxing somebody because he is successful is such bullshit I think their should just be less government spending.

Oh god, the rich person can't get a botox injection every week? And he loses money to help others? What a sick bastard this type of government is. People don't deserve to be helped.

PersianLlama:

BaronAsh:

Spartan Bannana:

snowplow:
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin

Care to have some content in this post besides the link?

Anyway, I like Obama's plan, the tax raise only affects rich people, and there's been analysis done, I can't remember the exact numbers but John Mccain's plan will raise our debt about 14 trillion dollars, and Obama's plan would raise our debt about 78 billion dollars.

I heard that from an anaylist on Nine News right after the 3rd debate.

I want some proof on that one.

Besides Obama says he's going to tax the rich folks even more, their tax rate is already 35% which is the second highest in the world. In my mind taxing somebody because he is successful is such bullshit I think their should just be less government spending.

Oh god, the rich person can't get a botox injection every week? And he loses money to help others? What a sick bastard this type of government is. People don't deserve to be helped.

You know, this is just wrong on many, many levels.

Not EVERY rich person is a dickhead. I knew MANY when I was young, and they gave HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars to CHARITY. They also voulenteered to help the community when they weren't working their asses off for the paycheck they deserve.

IF YOU WORK HARD, YOU DESERVE A REWARD FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE.

Acervusvlos:

PersianLlama:

BaronAsh:

Spartan Bannana:

snowplow:
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin

Care to have some content in this post besides the link?

Anyway, I like Obama's plan, the tax raise only affects rich people, and there's been analysis done, I can't remember the exact numbers but John Mccain's plan will raise our debt about 14 trillion dollars, and Obama's plan would raise our debt about 78 billion dollars.

I heard that from an anaylist on Nine News right after the 3rd debate.

I want some proof on that one.

Besides Obama says he's going to tax the rich folks even more, their tax rate is already 35% which is the second highest in the world. In my mind taxing somebody because he is successful is such bullshit I think their should just be less government spending.

Oh god, the rich person can't get a botox injection every week? And he loses money to help others? What a sick bastard this type of government is. People don't deserve to be helped.

You know, this is just wrong on many, many levels.

Not EVERY rich person is a dickhead. I knew MANY when I was young, and they gave HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars to CHARITY. They also voulenteered to help the community when they weren't working their asses off for the paycheck they deserve.

IF YOU WORK HARD, YOU DESERVE A REWARD FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE.

AND NOT EVERY RICH PERSON DOES THAT, IN FACT MOST DON'T! AND WHAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE TAX IF THEY ALREADY DONATE SHITLOADS? HAY I CAN TYPE IN CAPS TOO FOR SOME STUPID REASON.

Acervusvlos:

It's what he plans to DO that is socialist.
You can be a Fascist, and not know it (I'm a conservative, but let's be honest, Bush was pushing us toward Fascism, Reagan is rolling over in his grave whenever people associate Bush with the republican party.)
At the same time, you can be a Socialist without even saying it. He may not even CONSIDER it socialism. But still, doing something 'for the good of the majority of society' is SOCIALISM. That's what the democratic platform is, instead of supporting businesses that provide for people, they provide for people directly.

Both systems suck, to be honest, and, I know I'm going to spell it wrong, but, Lezzaiz Faire is the only way to go. We'll never reach it, though.

Laissez-faire? You mean like during the Industrial Revolution? When we had things like child slave labor?

And again, please point point out an example of Obama's plan that is directly socialistic.

Also, again, if Obama is socialistic what do you make of the plan to buy into the bank system with Federal money backed by Bush and his fellow Republican's? Is this not socialistic?

Spinozaad:

Keynes was pretty much dead on when it came to solving the crisis of the 1930's and is still pretty much dead on when it comes to the rule that consumption oils the economy. Without consumption (even with high costs of living) there can be no production, and it's still production that fuels the economy. Not financing.

Keynes' solution was "have a huge world-destroying war"? Otherwise this is bull. The policies enacted by Hoover and FDR made the Depression worse and prevented recovery, they didn't solve it. In fact, the worst years of the depression didn't come until well into FDR's administration.

Saying that consumers are irrelevant is rubbish. Consumers are the driving force behind the economy. Without people to buy products or services innovations, investments and production is unnecessary. Why? There's no one to buy it. That's why the great masses should always be able to consume, as they (to speak in Keynesian terms) 'oil the economy'.

Saying that consumption drives the *economy* is rubbish. Consumption is the *ultimate*, not the *efficient* use of assets--once things are consumed they're taken out of circulation and removed from the *economy*. Production drives the economy, and wealth is simply a measure of *unconsumed* goods.

This is easily demonstrable by the following thought experiment: what would happen if you were to start a farm in a remote area and then import 10,000 people who eat what you've grown but produce nothing? Within days your farm and anything you've saved will be gone. Those 10,000 consumers didn't somehow *magically* make your farm produce more. What happened? I thought consumption fuels production!

The potential for securing future profits from increased trading scope can help determine where capital is directed, but the simple prospect of throwing their stuff into a pit and setting fire to it is not going to encourage anyone to make more stuff, which is what "consumption" literally is.

Oh, it's true that there should be accumulated wealth to finance innovations and investments. This comes from banks. Banks should be a continueous force in the economy, and therefore not allowed to fall. Letting banks fall will only hurt the fragile economic structure. That's why the Dutch government was spot on in purchasing a national bank. It's a costly investment, but one that will definately pay off in the future while it guarantees financial life in the present.

Um, accumulated comes from people who produce more than they consume. Banks *store* wealth, they don't *manufacture* it. And a centrally-managed banking system just means that any errors in judgment of the central planners will wreck the finances of the entire country, not just the few people that particular bank could convince to be their customers. Kind of like what's happening in the U.S. as we speak.

A free, heterogenous, non-centrally-planned economy is amazingly robust and can weather just about any kind of disaster with equanimity. It is only with the advent of central planning that these huge economic crashes have begun to occur with distressing regularity. Alan Greenspan did a *fairly* good job of holding them off for a while, but *he* was criticized for keeping the money supply low and interest rates high.

Politicians love to imagine that they can secure a state of permanent economic boom by fiddling with factors they don't understand, but wealth is ultimately determined by the people who create it. Government creates nothing, it can only destroy.

Acervusvlos:
Then what do you say about all the crap the Republicans have been pulling with the bank buy outs? Who do you blame then? Or is it all still some "Socialist" Democrats fault?

I'd respond in two ways. First, I'd say that "the crap" being "pulled" with the bank buy outs cannot be attributed to the Republicans, seeing as the buy out is a piece of legislation, and the Democrats control both houses of Congress.

Second, I'd say that I'm against the bail-out regardless of whether it originated from Republicans or Democrats, and am against most of the other "solutions" that are being proposed. The economic administrators of our government, on both parties, have ruined the financial well-being of America. Giving them more power will simply mean more harm.

To the extent McCain will do less harm than Obama, I'm pro-McCain, but I feel as though I'm being asked whether I'd like my broken leg "cured" with amputation above or below the knee.

Imitation Saccharin :
SNIP
Lobbyists are hated (at least rhetorically) by both parties, so I fail to see how this applies to Obama especially.

SNIP
So if that much control exists, why the vanishing corporate benefits? The massive balloon of executive pay?
Surely the first thing the standard politico would do would be to fix those two?

SNIP
This is extremely vague.

SNIP
Again, if you are not engaging in hyperbole, why has this not already happened?

SNIP
If this holds true, EU nations should be locked dead. They are not.

Dang, a quote tree. I'll take these in order to avoid doing the same.

Lobbyists are not hated by either party. You could make the argument that each side hates the other side's lobbyists, that's about it. It applies slightly more to Obama only because the Republicans have to give at least lip service to preferring private market solutions; Democrats do not.

I don't know to what "vanishing corporate benefits" you refer. As to the issue of executive pay, Obama may well decide to limit executive pay by confiscatory tax rates. As always, however, expect lots of exceptions to be written in. As government control increases as it definitely will under Obama (and probably will under McCain), corporate welfare will inevitably increase. As corporations are increasingly shielded from consequences, expect executive pay to increase.

Conservatives believe government is a necessary evil and that the free market and individuals acting in their own best interest make America great. Liberals believe the free market and individuals acting in their own best interest are necessary evils and government makes America great. Republicans, counting on many conservative votes and few liberal votes, have to at least pay lip service to smaller, less intrusive government. Democrats, counting on many liberal votes and few conservative votes, do not have to pay lip service to smaller, less intrusive government. Democrats are therefore much more free to introduce new and larger government programs and increased government control and regulation. Obama, being both a Democrat and the most liberal senator in the Senate, can therefore be expected to introduce more government control, both in increased regulation and in increased corporate welfare, by simply looking at the programs each party and each end of the political spectrum have actually introduced and supported. If this is vague, you don't follow politics in the USA.

The re-distribution of income has been happening since before World War 2. We have welfare programs, Earned Income Tax Credits, economic tax rebate incentives based not on how much tax you have paid, but simply on whether you paid any tax, and most of all, the progressive tax system by which my boss pays not only more tax than I do, but also a proportionally higher tax rate. All these things are re-distribution of wealth where government takes more from one person, takes less from a second person, and gives to a third person to make wealth more evenly distributed. I'm not saying this is totally bad, but it's asinine to not admit it's happening.

People in EU nations are indeed less likely to move up or down in socio-economic class than are Americans, simply because EU nations provide more support and confiscate more wealth. This makes it more difficult to accumulate the capital needed to start a small business GIVEN THE SAME PER-CAPITA WEALTH, but also means that children of the poor start out at less of a disadvantage than do children of the poor in the United States. Again, to what extent you want to reward hard work and good ideas versus equalizing results and protecting the downtrodden will depend on which system you prefer. However, the effect of the US crash on EU markets and banks makes it pretty clear how much EU wealth is generated in the USA. If you don't believe that, try asking Archon how many hours a week he puts in, especially as this was getting off the ground. Success within capitalism comes from good ideas and a lot of hard work; 35 hour work weeks and six weeks of vacation don't get you to the top. Equalizing results and protecting the downtrodden may be noble, but it inherently leaves a lower average. In the case of the EU nations, they are able to lean on US military spending for protection and utilize US markets for profits. When the USA becomes, in effect, an EU-style country, there's going to be a need for EU nations to make radical changes to avoid recession.

Axia, did you notice that a much higher proportion of Democrats than Republicans voted for the bailout plan? I blame it on both parties, although I don't even mind the bailout, which probably had to be done, as much as Congress' total lack of addressing the underlying causes, much of which was directly caused by government actions. Without changing the system or punishing those who acted irresponsibly, the system will only march toward an even bigger crash necessitating an even bigger bailout. THAT is what pisses me off.

axia777:
Another thing of note, if we can spend all most three trillion dollars on this war in Iraq, I think it is justified that we can spend a few billion on things like Universal Health Care. I also never said I wanted America to completely shift to full Socialism. A careful melding of Capitalism and Socialism would do just fine. A free business market with a Federally run Health Care system sounds pretty good to me.

How much would universal health care cost? Certainly not "a few billion". Take McCain's "$5000 per American" for health insurance, which Obama has already indicated he thinks isn't enough. Multiply $5000 for health care times 300 million Americans. The result is $1.5 TRILLION dollars per year. That's the cost of universal health care. The War in Iraq has cost about $200-500 billion annually, much, much less than health care.

Setting aside cost comparisons, there's no reason that expenses fighting a war wouuld justify providing health care. Fighting wars is one of the few legitimate exercises of government power. Providing health care is....something that's being driven by Baby Boomers who are seeing their health care costs go up, and once again steering America's policies to their own self-interest.

Anyone who is under the age of 35 should realize that national health care is against your self-interest more than almost anything you can possibly imagine. You will literally be subsidizing an entire generation of your elders, who grew up with less taxes and less debt than you, and are now asking you to fund their social security and healthcare, while operating in a far more competitive global economy. Meanwhile, over time, the universal health care will decline in standard of quality (as socialized medicine is everywhere not as effective as our private system - which is why rich people come to the US for their medicine) so that by the time YOU are elderly, your health care will not be as good as what today's elders enjoy.

While you are it, why not vote for higher social security benefits, too? Let's see if we can totally bankrupt the nation before any of us hit 50.

werepossum:

Lobbyists are not hated by either party.

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over."- Obama, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

"The federal government spends too much money, squanders precious resources on questionable projects pushed by special interests, and ignores the priorities of the American taxpayer." Mccain, http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4a3ab6fe-b025-42b1-815b-13c696a61908.htm

I'd thought they were both kept men, but apparently not...

werepossum:

As always, however, expect lots of exceptions to be written in.

Defend this statement.
Government control does not equal special treatment until you've established a link as such.

werepossum:

Liberals believe the free market and individuals acting in their own best interest are necessary evils and government makes America great.

Defend this statement.

werepossum:

However, the effect of the US crash on EU markets and banks makes it pretty clear how much EU wealth is generated in the USA.

Defend this statement.

werepossum:

People in EU nations are indeed less likely to move up or down in socio-economic class than are Americans

http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/news/articles/mexico_mobility.html
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

werepossum:

As government control increases ... expect executive pay to increase.

Why?

werepossum:

I'm not saying this is totally bad, but it's asinine to not admit it's happening.

Straw man.

Reaperman Wompa:

Ultrajoe:
For some reason, why do i feel that i will only feel rage towards this video?

His voice is irritating already.

No, you're not the only one.

Yeah I don't feel I am taking it to far when I say his voice makes me want to kick a small dog off a bridge Anchorman style.

Anomynous 167:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea9_1222928000

I think you should watch it...

I watched it and I must agree with the only Intelligable people here who are not screaming about politics

Reaperman Wompa:

Ultrajoe:
For some reason, why do i feel that i will only feel rage towards this video?

His voice is irritating already.

No, you're not the only one.

If we were to ignore the big Controversial draw of the video (starts with a "Pol" and ends witha "tics")
We can see that this movie was some cheap project for a 15-year-old to get credit in a graphic arts class
Congratulations, You can Alpha Tween

PersianLlama:

BaronAsh:

Spartan Bannana:

snowplow:
http://www.jibjab.com/originals/time_for_some_campaignin

Care to have some content in this post besides the link?

Anyway, I like Obama's plan, the tax raise only affects rich people, and there's been analysis done, I can't remember the exact numbers but John Mccain's plan will raise our debt about 14 trillion dollars, and Obama's plan would raise our debt about 78 billion dollars.

I heard that from an anaylist on Nine News right after the 3rd debate.

I want some proof on that one.

Besides Obama says he's going to tax the rich folks even more, their tax rate is already 35% which is the second highest in the world. In my mind taxing somebody because he is successful is such bullshit I think their should just be less government spending.

Oh god, the rich person can't get a botox injection every week? And he loses money to help others? What a sick bastard this type of government is. People don't deserve to be helped.

I am currently 15 years old my parents make on annual about 40,000$ dollars a year combined without taxes.

I plan to go to college get a degree in Architecture and become a rich man I have worked my ass off to get to were I am now in a program called E.M.I.T. and when and if I do become a rich man I don't want to be discriminated against tax wise because I worked my ass off to become rich.

Besides you kind of missed the point of LESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING in other words, less government in general.

Random argument man:

Lvl 64 Klutz:

Random argument man:

Note*McCain is one dead beat away of dying. I'm scared of Sarah Palin.

I'm not a McCain supporter, but if Cheney can survive a term...

Do you realize how Sarah Palin is not qualified for the job?

Of course, trust me I hate her, I was simply commenting that it's not like there's anything close to a guarantee that McCain would die in office.

Imitation Saccharin :

werepossum:

Lobbyists are not hated by either party.

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over."- Obama, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

"The federal government spends too much money, squanders precious resources on questionable projects pushed by special interests, and ignores the priorities of the American taxpayer." Mccain, http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4a3ab6fe-b025-42b1-815b-13c696a61908.htm

I'd thought they were both kept men, but apparently not...

werepossum:

As always, however, expect lots of exceptions to be written in.

Defend this statement.
Government control does not equal special treatment until you've established a link as such.

werepossum:

Liberals believe the free market and individuals acting in their own best interest are necessary evils and government makes America great.

Defend this statement.

werepossum:

However, the effect of the US crash on EU markets and banks makes it pretty clear how much EU wealth is generated in the USA.

Defend this statement.

werepossum:

People in EU nations are indeed less likely to move up or down in socio-economic class than are Americans

http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/news/articles/mexico_mobility.html
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

werepossum:

As government control increases ... expect executive pay to increase.

Why?

werepossum:

I'm not saying this is totally bad, but it's asinine to not admit it's happening.

Straw man.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize anyone still actually believed what a politician says whilst running for office. Perhaps you could look at the millions Barack Obama has steered to ACORN or Tony Rezko. Or the special low interest rate he received. Or look at whose jets John McCain has used for his travel, before he could afford his own. Those might be a tad more realistic than campaign statements, ya think? Perhaps even look at how much each has accepted from lobbyists to run for president. American politicians love to pretend they hate lobbyists; the truth says otherwise. In fact, many bills are written in initial form by lobbyists.

I may be wrong about average mobility in the USA. However my original point was that the USA allowed better upward mobility than the EU countries because it is easier to save capital and easier to get into business. However I still think the US system is better for the exceptional person who has a good idea and is willing to work harder than the average bear, even if socialism may be better at moving everyone toward an average salary, which is after all the goal of socialism - moving everyone to that average wage. (I say "may" because I have a gut distrust of anything printed in the New York Times or generated by Columbia University, both of which are dedicated to moving the USA to the left for political reasons.)

As to the rest of your "Defend this statement" remarks, have you actually read any bills enacted into law? Almost every bill has a tax break for this company or a grant for this special interest or a regulatory exclusion for that company. If you believe government control of an industry does not equal special treatment for some parts of that industry, then you obviously believe government is always unbiased and fair. Even if that were true - if government did not, say, grant a tax break to a particular company because a powerful chairman's son was a lobbyist for that company - what would government control do except create special treatment for one company over another? Why control an industry if you do not show special favor? HOW could you control an industry without giving special treatment of one company over another or that industry over other industries? What can government do that does not favor one company over another, yet still somehow controls that industry?

Similarly, if you do not understand liberal and conservative wings of the American political spectrum, how can we even have a political conversation? Have you not noticed that for every problem, liberals call for government regulation, a new government program? Have you not noticed conservatives calling for smaller, less intrusive government and de-regulation?

Those favoring the EU-style Western Socialism like to point to the current US financial crisis as a failure of our less-socialist system. How then do you explain the bank failures and bailouts in Iceland, France, the United Kingdom? The world-wide stock market downturn? The EU generates large amounts of income in the United States, and when the US goes down, the EU goes down with us. If this were not true, we would not be seeing the same problems in the EU - socialism would insulate their economies. Yet you don't see nearly the reverse effect; when EU nations go into recession, seldom is the USA affected. For example, half of worldwide automobile profits are generated in the USA, and large parts of that profit go to EU nations as well as to Japan and Korea. For instance, Ford trucks use automatic transmissions made in France. The US economy drives the EU economy, and when the US goes socialist, that income will dry up.

And you need to read the definition of a straw man; I do not think it means what you think it means.

You know what, I think george washington was correct. He was against a two-party system and you know what? It would probably be for the better I think. Our country would still be Democratic institution because still the two houses of congress would hold all the power. But the man who the party thinks did the most, Plus 3 others could be voted for. With limits on the amount of spending.(.50cent from each americans tax break would yeild around 100 million(And this comes from a really low figure such as if only 200 million people actually do their tax break.)one million for each canidate. They could not use anymore or any-less. This would stop the influencing power of PAC, And special intrest groups running out government. Then the rest of the money could be used by the government to say, Miltary pay increase, Better benefits if dieing and stuff. Or it could be distrubuted 1.5 million to each state which then the states could have more funding while the government still has some left over.

There's a quote that applies. "When the government controls buying and selling, the first thing to be bought and sold will be politicians." I forget who said it, but it certainly applies to our society today.

werepossum:
There's a quote that applies. "When the government controls buying and selling, the first thing to be bought and sold will be politicians." I forget who said it, but it certainly applies to our society today.

Yes but those will be government bought, Instead of PAC's and special interest groups.

werepossum:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize anyone still actually believed what a politician says whilst running for office.

Hence why I said "at least rhetorically"

werepossum:

As to the rest of your "Defend this statement" remarks, have you actually read any bills enacted into law?

You have provided no evidence to support vast swaths of definitive statements, and until evidence can be provided they will be rejected as untruth.

werepossum:

If you believe government control of an industry does not equal special treatment for some parts of that industry, then you obviously believe government is always unbiased and fair.

This arguement makes no sense

werepossum:

what would government control do except create special treatment for one company over another?

Demand all companies meet certain guidelines of worker safety, demand a maximum salary cap, create a regulatory board to oversee industry actions.
None of these would create special treatment.

werepossum:

HOW could you control an industry without giving special treatment of one company over another or that industry over other industries?

How do you govern people without showing partiality to any one? Uniform law.

werepossum:

Similarly, if you do not understand liberal and conservative wings of the American political spectrum, how can we even have a political conversation?

I understand them, but I find it the most troubling facet of political discourse to generalize, and then rely on those generalizations as truth.

werepossum:

Have you not noticed that for every problem, liberals call for government regulation, a new government program?

Would you agree or disagree liberals would support anti-trust legislation more-so then republicans against a given corporation?
If yes, your statement is false.

werepossum:

Those favoring the EU-style Western Socialism like to point to the current US financial crisis as a failure of our less-socialist system. How then do you explain the bank failures and bailouts in Iceland, France, the United Kingdom?

They piggybacked your poor investments as per globalization?

werepossum:

socialism would insulate their economies.

From where are you deriving this from?

werepossum:

And you need to read the definition of a straw man; I do not think it means what you think it means.

You defeated an arguement I did not make then attributed it to me.
Hence, straw man.

Damn, the Archon himself is above politics and has a lucid analysis of the situation. Shall we bail the ship out or let her sink? It might be my being under thirty, but the ideals you're fighting for are ones I used to be downright venomous about as well. Now? The free market is dead. The Federal Government now has a controlling interest in the top 9 banks of America. He who controls the debt...controls the planet.

I don't think either candidate is going to do anything except the inevitable when it comes to recessions in America. During the debates I thought McCain's zinger of "You should've ran in 2004" was hilarious, because Obama missed his chance to respond "You should've ran in 2000". Neither are witty enough to keep up with a real American President. McCain chucked his legitimacy when he chose a VP who is remarkably less qualified then even my dumb ass. Obama has been silent on his willingness to relinquish Bush's declaration that the constitution grants the Executive Branch immunity from Congress and Federal Law. And god forbid anyone dare make more than 250,000 dollars under him, because success will become a crime in this country. We will, as has always been the truth in this nation, get the president we deserve.

You take the fiddle, I'll pour the wine. Nero would be proud.

I honestly can't decide who to vote for because Economics has become so politicized that I don't know which set of theories is reliable.

US goes socialist,

It seems to me like you're confusing implementing aspects of socialism into policy with a radical move to the left.

:|

I'm not sure that's what's going on here.

@ Every Republican, and anti-socialist in this thread

We can't go 10 years without giving home loans to people who've defaulted 3 times before, having computers crash our stock market, having banks become so dependent on each other that when one goes they all do, or something else just as stupid threatening to ruin our economy. And you're surprised the government has to hold our hands?

L.B. Jeffries:
During the debates I thought McCain's zinger of "You should've ran in 2004" was hilarious, because Obama missed his chance to respond "You should've ran in 2000". Neither are witty enough to keep up with a real American President.

I never knew i needed to hear this. Now that i have i cannot go without.

Unless he can zing an opponent 9 times out of 10, i do not consider a candidate worthy.

Could we resurrect Churchill? Just for shits and giggles.

Martin Sheen for President!

@ McCarthyists and fearful right-wingers: There was a lot of crap going round America in the 1930s about Roosevelt 'socialising' or 'turning America communist'. Guess what? That's the crap the right ALWAYS puts out when they try to scupper a popular President. You're just falling for the same, tired BS as a good number of Americans did during the Great Deppression. The fact of the matter is: Unrestricted capitalism does not work. While in the short run it can produce massive economic competition, in the long run it leads to the following evils:

-Olgiopoly, or worse, Monopoly (check out history if you don't beleive me)

-A massivly dissatisfied, dehumanised workforce. (Leading to civil unrest, and,if unchecked, communsim)

-Grossly uneven distribution of wealth (leading to economic instability See: tne Great Deppression)

Oh, and JM:

JMeganSnow:

Good lord, what a staggering load of economic ignorance.

1. The Great Depression was caused by, in large part, government meddling with the money supply. What started out as a stock-market bubble (very similar to the 1990's .com bubble if you can remember that far back) was hideously exacerbated by *further* government interference. The bank failures were a *consequence*, not a *cause*. The government *should* allow the banks to fail, because that money is *gone anyway*. Where do you think that bailout money is going to *come* from?

Either they won't raise taxes (likely, since a tax hike is politically unpalatable) in which case prices will skyrocket due to inflation, or they will raise taxes, in which case everyone in the country will be forced to pay for the stupid decisions of a few people who will go ON making stupid decisions. It's like throwing a bunch of money into a pit and setting fire to it.

"Allowing" the banks to fail (as they would normally) allows better, more efficient people to buy out the assets that still have value and put them to good use. The hemorrhage is stopped, the economy recovers. Sure, some people may lose their houses or their savings--but they're the ones who invested in the risky schemes to begin with. How is it right to punish *everyone* for the bad decisions of a *few* stupid people and KEEP THE STUPID PEOPLE IN CHARGE?! When one of your employees bankrupts your company by investing in a Nigerian Email Scam, you don't give him a stack of money and tell him not to do it again! You fire the idiot!

2. Consumers are *irrelevant* in economic terms. Saying we have to encourage spending and consumption is like saying that you get rich by spending all your money on Twinkies. You *don't*. People, and hence the country, get rich by *saving* money (you know, like RICH PEOPLE do) and investing it in productive enterprises. Draining the savings of the rich just means that jobs evaporate, new ventures aren't ventured, and capital-intensive improvements dry up. By the time the "rich" have to stop buying the nice cars and houses you envious jerks so obviously object to, the "poor" have long since finished starving to death. You don't get a good job that can support your family by choking to death the only people who can provide it.

Even worse, such measures do terrible things to the middle class, who are the real productive force in any economy. Small entrepreneurs now find it impossible to obtain loans, new competitors are prevented from accumulating capital and bringing new products to market, which leaves your beloved "consumers" with no choice but to pay higher prices for existing products. Upward mobility vanishes, freezing the "rich" into a permanent elite caste who put their worthless offspring into public office. (Like our current president.)

You should put *down* your Keynesian economics textbook and pick *up* an Austrian one. All of Keynes theories are crap, based on fallacies that have been exploded many times--heck, the progress of the last 80 years should more than demonstrate that *spending* all your money is no way to get rich.

And you shoulc pick up a nice British one (Written by the Cambridge. C.A.M.B.R.I.D.G.E.). And compare the british economy to the Austrian one. Then actually engage the brain, and consider WHO HAS THE BETTER SYSTEM.

Rebuttal:

1. How was the Great Deppression caused by 'interference in the money supply'? How in gods good name can interest rates create so gross a period of economic devestation as happened between 1929 and 1941!? Oh, wait, it can't.

2. Consumers are irrelvevant. Well, please cite whatever bullshit textbook/magaxine/cornflakes packet you're getting that from. The entirity of the world's wealth is regarded (by every economist since ADAM SMITH) as being tied up in consumers.

It's remarkably simple really: If people aren't buying what is being produced (Because their wages are cut, or their unemployed etc, etc) then your firm will go out of business far quicker than if it can't gain access to capital. Sure, expansion will be curtailed, but the astounding drop in Per Capita welfare that happens during economic reccesion will be far more minimal than happens when you have the pickaxe-to-the-kidneys effect of a massive drop in demand. Without supply, there is no demand, and without demand, there is no supply.
Each is utterly interdependant on the other.

3. Investment is what causes all these damn reccesions, my good sir! It is overconcentration of wealth in the hands of the rich that leads to stock market booms, as they invest in the stocks/bonds market. But what happens when it all goes pear-shaped? Wages get cut, welfare gets scaled back, lots of money in essence stops flowing, and we all hunker down for the economic equivalent of a nuclear winter.

4. I'm sorry, by your logic the person who put their life savings into a bank, which subsequently collapses, is at fault for making use of that bank. I find this idea so abjectly unpalateble that I'm having trouble holding back the bile in my throat. Leaving aside the fact that many smaller towns only have one bank in them, the same laissiz-faire system promoted by rightwingers such as yourselves is alos responsible for many people being unable to actually tell whether a bank is stable or not, as it places no requirement on banks to be open at all with their investements

5. To those who pretend America isn't dependant on Europe: If Eurpoe were to collapse, you'd damn well know about it. God knows how many of your companies are owned in part by european investors-how many of your products are bought by European consumers-how many of your products either rely on European technology-how many of your products are partly or wholly made in Europe.

The world financial system is like a triangular house of three walls: Europe, Asia and America, with the roof of prosperity on top. Knock out one of these walls, and the whole house crumbles.

Ultrajoe:

L.B. Jeffries:
During the debates I thought McCain's zinger of "You should've ran in 2004" was hilarious, because Obama missed his chance to respond "You should've ran in 2000". Neither are witty enough to keep up with a real American President.

I never knew i needed to hear this. Now that i have i cannot go without.

Unless he can zing an opponent 9 times out of 10, i do not consider a candidate worthy.

Could we resurrect Churchill? Just for shits and giggles.

OI! Get your greasy american hands off our greatest ever leader!