Obama and Bush not so far apart...
-
PSiedTSi;242258 wrote:
Yeah, so it would be just like '04 when I didn't vote for the lunatic on the left or the retard on the right. Or in '00, If I could have voted, my vote wouldn't have mattered anyway because popular vote=squat.So instead of whining about it....do something about it. Grassroot movements are going to get us the change we need. It doesnt happen overnight. Build momentum and grow from there...
-
Honestly, it's more than that. I really don't what is right. I really don't know what I want. It's like the South Park episode with the underpants gnomes(lol yeah I wen there). Step 1: collect underpants; Step 2: ????; Step 3: Profit.
Nobody really knows where to go. I don't think we'd be happy with any candidate running right now(although I seem to feel a weird consensus about Ron Paul). We(general public, anyway) expect a solution almost overnight. And you're right, a grassroots movement will allow us to get what we want, regardless of who is President.
One of my economic stimulating ideas: Legalization of marijuana. I'm sure I'll be judged negatively about my opinion on this. Not only would it stimulate the economy, but it would in turn help clean up the streets(among other things). Some people believe this is all a "pipe" dream, though. If the government regulated(taxed) the sale, or hell even sold it themselves, it could produce an enormous income potential(without much investment!). Now, I don't have the fancy numbers to prove it, but really think about it. The black market would dry up(meaning the gov't would be the only competition), and if they kept costs the same, think of the money that could be made! It would save people on prescription drugs(I watched my dad take thousands of dollars of pills a month when he just needed some nausea relief and appetite stimulant), while allowing the government to profit on these "prescriptions".
Maybe I'm retarded, but it seems like a simple plan that harms few(black market dealers that earn non-taxed income?) and helps thousands(or millions, if helping the government helps you).
-
SmitEvo;242245 wrote:
Then you should realize how screwed as a country we are in general...obama sucks and mccain sucks. Period...quit sticking up for what you believe is the lesser of two evils.I can agree with this statement. I think Barack can be a better leader than McCain and will be better with foreign affairs and just might be able to help garner more support for the US around the world and instill confidence that the US is a leader to be looked up to and not the bully that we are currently being portrayed as.
That^^^^ is why I like Obama over McCain. Is he off his fucking rocker sometimes? Yes. But do I see him as more of a threat to this country than McCain? Nope, I see him as less of a threat.
-
SmitEvo;242238 wrote:
So paying taxes would be the same as not paying taxes? That is what I dont think you are getting. Quit playing stupid here and trying to pull an Obama tactic and answer the question. Does Obama have NO INCOME tax in his plan? Does PAUL have NO INCOME TAX in his plan? You dont need to try and explain economics to me, I understand them completley and know what is going on. Bottom line paying NO INCOME TAX would be more benficial for the economy than THE RICH PAYING THE INCOME TAX....NO. They are not the same as not paying taxes. BUT they can BOTH stimulate the economy, just on different levels. I agree, if there were ZERO taxes, the economy would explode, but inflation would skyrocket with it, so we'd probably be back to where we are now where everyone can afford whatever it is that they can afford.....nothing more than before, nothing less....the free market would dictate that.
-
PSiedTSi;242278 wrote:
Honestly, it's more than that. I really don't what is right. I really don't know what I want. It's like the South Park episode with the underpants gnomes(lol yeah I wen there). Step 1: collect underpants; Step 2: ????; Step 3: Profit.Nobody really knows where to go. I don't think we'd be happy with any candidate running right now(although I seem to feel a weird consensus about Ron Paul). We(general public, anyway) expect a solution almost overnight. And you're right, a grassroots movement will allow us to get what we want, regardless of who is President.
One of my economic stimulating ideas: Legalization of marijuana. I'm sure I'll be judged negatively about my opinion on this. Not only would it stimulate the economy, but it would in turn help clean up the streets(among other things). Some people believe this is all a "pipe" dream, though. If the government regulated(taxed) the sale, or hell even sold it themselves, it could produce an enormous income potential(without much investment!). Now, I don't have the fancy numbers to prove it, but really think about it. The black market would dry up(meaning the gov't would be the only competition), and if they kept costs the same, think of the money that could be made! It would save people on prescription drugs(I watched my dad take thousands of dollars of pills a month when he just needed some nausea relief and appetite stimulant), while allowing the government to profit on these "prescriptions".
Maybe I'm retarded, but it seems like a simple plan that harms few(black market dealers that earn non-taxed income?) and helps thousands(or millions, if helping the government helps you).
I'm all for legalizing pot. I don't think it will make the black market disappear though, because the highest grade stuff probably would still be sold by the dealer down the street and most people would go for best bang-for-the-buck to sell to their customers. You can buy black market guns, cigarettes, liquor, etc.. if you know the right people today...and all those things are legally sold in the open market.
-
SmitEvo;242253 wrote:
No...you can vote for other people. They just wont win. It is easy to stick to your principles...Right...or you can vote for the person you think will do the most good that might actually win. Personally, I think that man is Barack Obama, others think John McCain fits that model...honestly we'll never know because only one can win....and I'd rather cast my vote to the guy who I think has the best chance on improving things, even if the means of improving them doesn't match 100% how I'd prefer to see it attempted.
-
tjamz;242150 wrote:
Quit typing? Are you telling me to give up my freedom of speech? Are you challenging me to say that my opinion doesn't matter? I challenge you to quit breathing...no that is not a threat, I'm just asking you to voluntarily give up your right to breath.Yes, getting things packed was more important than this debate...more important than my country? Hell no, but the debate wasn't going to swing my vote. And just because McCain/Obama said something about the other doesn't mean that that information is true/accurate and isn't a whole hearted lie.
Do you honestly think that I am not informed on issues? Me? The guy who has an opinion on EVERYTHING! You bring me the issue, I'll answer it or research it until I'm informed.
I chose not to watch a debate....big deal. I knew who I was voting for before the debates. I know WHY I am voting the way I am. Now, tell me about my partial truths & whole hearted lies. I've given you plenty of ammo. Prove me wrong!
.
Blah blah blah look at me I'm chuck, the online adult attention whore blah blah blah
-
You either take things out of context (me telling you to stop typing so you don't make yourself look more stupid than what you already have been...I'm not saying to not exercise your 1st Ammendment right, so if you want to continue go right ahead, but you are only going to look more ignorant as time goes on)
-
You make whole hearted lies about Obama saying healthcare isn't a right (In the debate he said it was, which I showed you...Telling somebody that a candidate never said a statement when they really did is a whole hearted lie)
-
You copy and paste everything to make a point...Like I care what a website has to say, especially if it isn't a credible one, or one that's known to swing left...Find stuff that isn't totally bias and has wording that's fair from both sides for a change.
-
How can you compare Ron Paul to Obama in the way you did? How ignorant are you, really. No income tax vs. VERY HIGH taxes for the Americans that have earned it...
-
Just say you are supporting Obama all because of his foreign policy and not because of anything else...that'll save you from having to type your life away in this thread. If you don't believe the trickle down effect works, then why is it that when a few big wigs go under the entire economy goes under?...Why is it that when the big wigs are doing well that the economy prospers? 72% of CEO's FEAR Obama...They know higher taxes are coming in a country that already holds the 2nd highest company taxes in the world (35% vs. Ireland which is 11% as said by McCain in the debates)...
If you tax companies anymore they will leave...How can you not grasp that concept? Are you just that ignorant, or that stupid...?
At the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, Barack Obama = Karl Marx.
-
-
tjamz;242285 wrote:
NO. They are not the same as not paying taxes. BUT they can BOTH stimulate the economy, just on different levels. I agree, if there were ZERO taxes, the economy would explode, but inflation would skyrocket with it, so we'd probably be back to where we are now where everyone can afford whatever it is that they can afford.....nothing more than before, nothing less....the free market would dictate that.Inflation is more prone from expansionary credit caused by deficit spending and false interest rates imposed by the government that are not market driven. In addition, to printing money that we dont have with no backing...not from no income tax.
-
torbs;242291 wrote:
Blah blah blah look at me I'm chuck, the online adult attention whore blah blah blah- You either take things out of context (me telling you to stop typing so you don't make yourself look more stupid than what you already have been...I'm not saying to not exercise your 1st Ammendment right, so if you want to continue go right ahead, but you are only going to look more ignorant as time goes on)
Ignorant? Please elaborate w/o resorting to #2 where I've agreed to concede.
- You make whole hearted lies about Obama saying healthcare isn't a right (In the debate he said it was, which I showed you...Telling somebody that a candidate never said a statement when they really did is a whole hearted lie)
And I corrected my statement after proven wrong. I do think Obama didn't clarify his view on it as much as he should have, I don't think he feels that healthcare is a right that everyone should have, but rather that the "Right" is that when you have healthcare, it should be there to protect you for the worst case scenarios. This is my opinion on what I think his intentions are (based on everything else I've seen regarding his healthcare plan....maybe he changed his position...if so, I don't support this change of position)
- You copy and paste everything to make a point...Like I care what a website has to say, especially if it isn't a credible one, or one that's known to swing left...Find stuff that isn't totally bias and has wording that's fair from both sides for a change.
Business week magazine isn't a credible website? Uhh.... How is it any different than you or anyone else pointing to a website known to swing to the right? I'm all about balance man
- How can you compare Ron Paul to Obama in the way you did? How ignorant are you, really. No income tax vs. VERY HIGH taxes for the Americans that have earned it...
I never said their plans were the same.....just that the intended results were similar in that more tax dollars are likely to be pumped into local businesses if there are less taxes (or no taxes for that matter) being paid by the majority of the people. I've beat this to death already, learn to read. I also said that Pauls plan is to keep corporate taxes in place but get rid of income taxes and that I view this as socialistic too....making the businesses pay all of the taxes is a tax on the rich and is not fair....much like Obama's isn't fair.
- Just say you are supporting Obama all because of his foreign policy and not because of anything else...that'll save you from having to type your life away in this thread. If you don't believe the trickle down effect works, then why is it that when a few big wigs go under the entire economy goes under?...Why is it that when the big wigs are doing well that the economy prospers? 72% of CEO's FEAR Obama...They know higher taxes are coming in a country that already holds the 2nd highest company taxes in the world (35% vs. Ireland which is 11% as said by McCain in the debates)...
I already have said that his foreign policy views are what draws me more than anything...and of the two viable candidates, he is the one who I think can turn the economy/this country around....maybe not the way I want it to be turned around, but fiscally (raw numbers/data) his plan costs the country less money than McCains.
If you tax companies anymore they will leave...How can you not grasp that concept? Are you just that ignorant, or that stupid...?
There have been tax incentives on the books for years and years that actually encourage companies to incorporate overseas. Besides, didn't we see the largest number of businesses shift to China/Korea/India under BUSH than we have seen under any other president?
At the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, Barack Obama = Karl Marx.
I wish I hadn't banned you now Torbs, I have agreed that his tax plan is socialistic in its wealth redistribution...but the beauty is in 4 to 8 years, we can elect someone who will change his plan (if it ever sees the light of day)
btw, thanks for banning me GSR!
-
tjamz;242226 wrote:
That's been working real well for us lately hasn't it? I mean, how well has the economy done since those tax changes took effect that benefited the wealthy (not arguing that they didn't deserve the breaks....because I feel they did). Even before all this blew up in our faces (economy) the economy was struggling...moving forward, but struggling.Actually the economy was doing extremely well before this fed-caused this housing debacle. Especially if you consider the circumstances here and abroad (9-11, war, etc).
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
SmitEvo;242297 wrote:
Inflation is more prone from expansionary credit caused by deficit spending and false interest rates imposed by the government that are not market driven. In addition, to printing money that we dont have with no backing...not from no income tax.So, you are telling me that if there were more demand for goods, the supply side wouldn't raise prices to meet demand? I mean, that is the premise of a free market, right? Supply vs Demand.....the same reason why min wage doesn't help (took me a while to get to this point) because everything costs more when the people making/selling it get paid more.
-
Chuck, of course there would still be a black market, but it would be toned down, and likely less volatile. The amount of middlemen make the market price greater and greater, because everyone wants a piece of the pie. Very seldom do you know the grower or the 'dealer' themselves. It would be easy for the gov't to 'undersell' the regular dealers. Another option would be to utilize private growers already in place(which would further curtail the black market activities).
As far as quality goes, I really don't think black market growers can compete. Look at california for example. When I was there recently, a person in training with me(no really it was lol) asked someone where he could find some, and the kid simply said: you need a 'card' for that. seems like most use the gov't sources when available(even though its ONLY for medicinal purposes).
I'll post more when I get to a comp.
-
DaveH;242305 wrote:
Actually the economy was doing extremely well before this fed-caused this housing debacle. Especially if you consider the circumstances here and abroad (9-11, war, etc).Yup...they managed to get back to their all time highs....only took until 2006 to get back to the highs of July 1, 1999 and its been downhill since July 2, 2007 to present....well before the banking crisis started.
And yes, I know that back in 2007 was the start of this.
-
tjamz;242306 wrote:
So, you are telling me that if there were more demand for goods, the supply side wouldn't raise prices to meet demand? I mean, that is the premise of a free market, right? Supply vs Demand.....the same reason why min wage doesn't help (took me a while to get to this point) because everything costs more when the people making/selling it get paid more.Well like most markets, they would find a way to get an equilibrium price by creating more supply in the market. So if demand is high for something, a new business will be created to offset the supply problem. Just like our economy now...I think there are too many businesses/people that would jump all over this opportunity.
Min wage is bad...price floors never help perfect competition. It is kind of like Tariffs....messes up the markets.
-
Yes, I know this Brian....first you bitch that I write too long of posts, then I'm not detailed enough...but think about this Brian...where is the incentive to start a business? You are still being taxed if you do (or your business is anyway). So the answer is NOT to start a business...right?!?!? (I kid, I kid)
-
God i would LOVE to see Chuck and Torbs in PERSON debating this. See how knowledgeable and what you actually do know without going to Google or Glenbeck.com (or the show). Id have a feeling Chuck would destroy you.
PS Torbs, do you even know who/what Karl Marx is...quick...Google it real quick and find out.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login